Christine Boswell

Men and their sex drives seem to suffer as a result of doing more housework.  The frequency of sex, according to the American Sociological Review, declines in men from doing chores that are more traditionally feminine. (Kornich/Brines/Leupp ASA) “Chores such as cooking, cleaning and shopping” have a direct affect on men’s libidos because, psychologically, men divide household jobs into gender roles, where there is “women’s work,” and “men’s work,” categorizing “guy stuff” as more sexually arousing. For instance, traditionally, men, “chop wood.” This has a very strong sexual innuendo to a man.  “Loading the dishwasher” seems to lose its masculinity, and therefore, its “sexual innuendo,” because “that’s what women do.”  The data shows couples having sex 1.6 times more per month when the work is assigned in a more traditional way. (Curtis WP) The whole idea of “women’s work,” and how men see these roles, are a result of the systems of oppression: the symbolic oppression of masculine and feminine power, the institutional oppression of women beginning in the home, to school and carrying through her workplace, and individual oppression, which is related to the latter, and results with the framework women “grow into.” (Hill Collins 61-64)

“Only in a patriarchal society would the inclusion of women be interpreted as a potential threat or loss of men’s power.” (Shaw/Lee 17) This statement could almost be inverted where women are including men into their (our) world of everyday, family tasks, but still living in a patriarchal society. Symbolic oppression roots itself in stereotyping women as “passive followers” who are “less intellectual” (in which we are more “physical”) and “weak.” These are the “dichotomous” differences from which oppression is born. (Hill Collins 61-62) This gender-based symbolism has a direct effect on sexual behavior, going as far as household chores. (Science Daily) How did this happen? “Sexual Scripts,” according to Kornich, Brines and Leupp, is a logic arguing sexual activity, between men and women, is dictated through “cultural scripts.”  The evidence has found itself in teens, where their “sexual scripts” have categorized their sexual activity from masculine and feminine identities. (Kornich/Brines/Leupp 30) This means gender roles go back into childhood, as these are learned behaviors.  This is the very core of androcentrism and its damaging symbolism because gender roles skew more favorably toward the man. “This projection of patriarchal mentality equates someone’s gain with another’s loss.” (Shaw/Lee 17) The gain: women having help around the house.  The loss is women’s sexual satisfaction. This has a real effect on the “institution” of marriage.

Kornich, Brines and Leupp write about “egalitarian marriages” What is interesting is according to their research, gender’s role in adult, heterosexual marriages are viewed with a “sibling-like tonality,” and that “distance or difference”  helps maintain a passionate marriage.  This institutionalizes heterosexual marriages, where gender is a determining factor of what men do and what women do. (Kornich/Brines/Leupp 30) “Racism, sexism and elitism all have concrete institutional locations.” (Hill Collins 62) Women doing the housework “convey a traditionally-gendered affection.” (Kornich/Brines/Leupp 32) Schools are a breeding ground of institutional oppression. Classes such as “home economics,” support the symbolic traditional roles assigned to women.  Religious institutions are another example of a dichotomous scheme of traditional “gendered divisions of labor.”(Kornich/Brines/Leupp 35) This seems to act as a form of slavery, as slavery is structured from race, class and gender. (Hill Collins 62) This view of women carries itself into the workplace, where women are still paid seventy-seven cents to every dollar and hold few positions of power in Fortune 500 companies, government, and most other “high-paid, high status positions.” Not to mention the “second shift,” where women not only have a job outside the home but then come home and do housework, an “average of 14 hours more than men, who only gain about ninety minutes.” (Shaw/Lee 394) The “Mythical Norm” that has mapped itself alongside these oppressive systems will keep women afraid of stepping outside the box.

“Young women may believe that a feminist identity puts them out of the pool for many men, limits the options of who they might become with a partner, how they might decide to live.” In the age of combating these gender-based “family values,” women need to know they shouldn’t have to give up their “intimate relationships.” (Shaw/Lee 656)  The “individual dimension of oppression” is the answer to the symbolic and institutional oppressions which structure women’s (our) lives. (Hill Collins 62)The result of women seeing less sex/men being less sexual from crossing over the housework lines is the result of the “individual oppression” to whom this housework is traditionally assigned. 

How do we manage this issue?  What can be undone? The answer lies in our own discoveries as individuals. Simply put: if you don’t like how things are then you have the power to change them. (Hill Collins 64) “Men who refuse to help around the house could increase conflict in their marriage,”(France-Presse) which directly affects the wife because sex plays a huge part in the intimacy of a marriage. The idea that there are women’s tasks and men’s tasks need to be unassigned.  Learning the everyday details of each other’s lives is a start. (Hill Collins 64) Creating this will open up a healthy dialogue and build a bridge over the chasm of marital duties and responsibilities, with particular attention placed on the marriage being “one” big pie, so to speak, rather than a traditional-gendered dish, divided into parts  where “girls mop” and men take out the trash.” The early research supports women’s satisfaction in a marriage where the chores are divided up equally. (Francis-Presse) The “empathy” (Hill Collins 65-66) created in this self-discovery, will reframe the way we view the marriage and lead to more intimacy, thereby increasing the frequency of sexual satisfaction for both men and women.  When satisfaction is increased, the marriage becomes self-sustaining and future generations are born into a new set of rules. These future generations will reshape how marriage is viewed and, hopefully, rid the systems of oppression from our intimate relationships.

 Works Cited:

• University of Washington (2013, January 30). Husbands who do more traditionally female housework have less sex. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 12, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2013/01/130130082258.htm#
•  France-Presse, Agence “Study: Increase in Husbands€™ Housework Tied to Declining Lovelife | The Raw Story.” Study: Increase in Husbands€™ Housework Tied to Declining Lovelife. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
• Curtis, Mary C. “More Housework Means Less Sex for Hubby, Says Study. What’s That Again?” Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post Company, 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/01/31/more-housework-means-less-sex-for-hubby-says-study-whats-that-again/>.
• Kornich, Sabino, Julie Brines, and Katrina Leupp. Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage (2012): n. pag. Http://asr.sagepub.com. 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
• Shaw, Susan M., and Janet Lee. Women’s Voices/Feminist Visions-Classic and Contemporary Readings. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.
• Hill-Collins, Patricia. “Toward A New Vision-Race, Class and Gender as Categories of Analysis and Connection.” Women’s Voices/Feminist Visions-Classic and Contemporary Readings. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 60-67. Print.

{ 0 comments }