The interplay of gender, work and family in Portuguese families Marisa Matias, Cláudia Andrade and Anne Marie Fontaine Marisa Matias is a PhD candidate and researcher in the Faculty of Psychology and Education at the University of Porto, Portugal. Cláudia Andrade is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Education at the University of Coimbra, Portugal. Anne Marie Fontaine is a Professor in the Faculty of Psychology and Education at the University of Porto, Portugal. ABSTRACT Portugal stands out in the European context of work and family relations for not fitting either into a traditional male breadwinner model or into a modern equitable model. Indeed, Portuguese society is characterised both by a high labour-market participation of both men and women and a gender-traditional division of domestic and caring work, where women do the majority of tasks. This paper reports on trends regarding the division of paid and unpaid labour over recent decades in Portugal. Challenging traditional sociological and demographic explanations, the scope of this review is to offer a psycho-social approach to the antecedents and outcomes of this division, as well as the processes individuals and families engage in to deal with multiple roles. Looking at the division of paid and unpaid labour through a gender lens, we conclude that, despite some changes in attitudes and practices, the display of gender roles still shapes both work and family relations in Portugal. Introduction Sociological research on historical trends in family life and the labour market have pointed to the importance of several historically-specific explanations for the current position of Portuguese women in the workforce: the Portuguese colonial war, emigration, the civil revolution of 1974 and the entry of Portugal into the European Union in 1986. During the 1960s and because of the Colonial War and emigration, men left their jobs, making them available to women. As a result, women did not just start to play a leading role in family life but also took over the running of family businesses (Torres, 2004). For women with secondary school education or university degrees, jobs in the service sector also became available. Emigration was also important because, for those women who emigrated with their husbands, working in foreign Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 6, Number 1. Spring, 2012 11 countries provided them with new ways of approaching work-family relations. In other European countries after the end of the war men returned to their previous positions in the labour market. In Portugal, however, the Colonial war ended only with the civil revolution in 1974, which brought in a democratic regime with a clear emphasis on women’s rights. This regime endorsed a more definite participation of women at the social and civic level by means of the Portuguese constitution, which in turn allowed them to keep their jobs (Torres, 2004). Additionally, women’s position in the public sphere was reinforced by Portugal’s entry into the European Union in 1986, which made equality a necessary principle in every law and regulation. Thus, today, Portuguese women constitute almost half of the employed population (46.9%) and their professional trajectory is characterised by full-time employment (84.5%) (INE, 2010). Additionally, when becoming mothers, women leave the labour force for short periods of maternity leave (for a maximum of six months). Indeed, recently Eurostat (2010) reported that 70.1% of mothers of one child and 67.7% of mothers of two children are active in the labour market, meaning that the majority of families in Portugal live in dual-earner households. These high standards of labour market participation would suggest that gender attitudes have been becoming more egalitarian, with work and family responsibilities being shared. However, a review of sociological research focused on gender roles and division of labour within the family reveals that traditional patterns, particularly regarding the performance of domestic chores, have remained unchanged in Portugal over the last two decades (Andrade, 2006; 2010a; Poeschl, 2007; Torres, 2004). In addition, and although some Portuguese public policies during the 1990s made an attempt to promote the expansion of childcare facilities, for pre-school years, these services, as well as elderly care services, are still insufficient or too expensive, making the ability to balance work and family a challenge for Portuguese families (Soccare Project, 2004; Wall, 2005). In fact, the Portuguese state is described by EspingAndersen (1999 in Pfau-Effinger 1999) as a ‘familistic’ welfare state; one in which the state does not provide all the necessary conditions to support a mother’s employment. In 2005, a national survey of working mothers found that 26% of children under 10 are cared for by mothers, 33% attend some type of childcare facility (nursery school, kindergarten), 26% are in the care of their grandparents and 10% are cared for by other family members (Torres, Silva, Monteiro & Cabrita, 2005). Furthermore, extended families are the usual solution when individuals have to deal with unpredictable events, such as sudden health problems or accidents. These data reveal that a high percentage of children must be staying at home by themselves or going with their mothers to their place of work. It is clear that more services and facilities outside the family are required to meet the needs of working mothers and fathers (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007) particularly because additional studies have shown that long-hours childcare is only available in the private sector (Larsen & Hadlow, 2003). Younger generations, as well as working mothers and fathers, rely mainly on state public provision for regulating care services as well as for regulating working practices (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007; Torres et al., 2005). The situation is exacerbated by the stane of companies: Portuguese organisations in general do not have family-friendly 12 The reproduction of difference: gender and the global division of labour policies (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007; Santos, 2010). A survey of human resources managers in Portugal found that only 38% of companies offer flexibility in work and in work schedules as an initiative to balance private and professional spheres (CabralCardoso, 2003). Because such family-friendly initiatives are not generally provided through formal human resources (HRM) programmes or policies, the majority of companies (50.3%) offer only informal solutions that rely mainly on the supervisor’s discretion (Cabral-Cardoso, 2003). These initiatives are consequently very much dependent on the relationship between the supervisor and employee and are thus more likely to be perceived as a perk rather than a right. Moreover, and because these policies are not part of companies’ HRM practices but have to be individually negotiated, Portuguese workers have a rather low sense of entitlement to the use of family-friendly policies (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007; Sümer, Smithson, Guerreiro & Granlund, 2008). Taking account of this sociological background and the context of extra-familial support in Portugal, the next section provides an analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of the division of paid and unpaid labour through a psycho-social approach. We will first address attitudes and practices regarding the division of paid and unpaid labour between men and women and advance possible explanations for this division. Then we will review research carried out with Portuguese samples addressing workfamily relations and their outcomes. Finally, we will report on research focusing on individual-level coping mechanisms for achieving work-family balance. We argue that, despite clear changes in the social arena, men’s and women’s family relations remain strongly gendered. Gender roles and the division of family labour We begin this section with an analysis of the attitudes towards the division of labour held by both men and women in Portugal. We will, then, address the practices of this paid and unpaid division of labour and offer some possible explanations for this division and how it is achieved between the partners, including psycho-social explanations. The section ends by reaffirming the importance of the role of gender display in explaining the division of labour in Portugal. The organisation and dynamics of the family remain traditional in Portugal, despite the strong participation of Portuguese women in the labour market (Poeschl, 2000). Research that aimed to identify social representations of the division of labour in Portuguese families and their influence on the routines adopted by couples has shown that individuals hold gendered representations of family roles. Namely, women are perceived as having to do more household chores and childcare than men and to have less power in the financial allocation of resources within the family (Poeschl & Serôdio, 1998; Poeschl & Silva, 2001). Yet women´s power of decision is perceived to be higher than men’s in activities related to children and the household (Poeschl, 2000). Additionally, when asked about who should do what in the household, young men are more likely than young women to see household chores as part of a women´s role in the family (Andrade, 2006, 2010a). These studies give a picture of traditional representations of roles in the family, where the man has the main responsibility Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 6, Number 1. Spring, 2012 13 towards the ‘outside world’, and the woman is responsible for the ‘inside family world’. These data are in line with what has been documented in other countries (Crompton & Lyonette, 2008) and are indicators of an unequal division of domestic chores in Portuguese families. Portuguese attitudes and representations regarding work and family relations are characterised by both modern and traditional positions in a paradoxical way. On the one hand, there is a strong adherence to the equality norm for women’s labour force participation (Wall & Guerreiro, 2005) and to the role of men in the family sphere. More than 80% of men and women agree that men should perform more childcare than they do (Aboim, 2007). On the other hand, women are seen as the gatekeepers of the family and their employment outside the home is still seen as having a negative impact on their children (Wall, 2007). The role of women is perceived as cumulative: it is desirable for women to be professionally active and independent, but women are also expected to be available for their family at all times and to take care of the children. These contradictory attitudes regarding women’s role put them at a higher risk of overburdening themselves in their attempt to fulfil societal expectations. Nevertheless, education level plays an important role in the enactment of these attitudes, especially for women; more highly educated women tend to have more modern attitudes regarding women’s roles (Aboim, 2007; Wall, 2007). Organisations still entail a view of the ideal worker as an individual without family responsibilities, fully committed and completely available (Santos, 2010). This representation influences the decisions and procedures used to grant access to resources, to recruit or to promote workers. Even when family-friendly policies are implemented, they are aimed at specific groups and do not put at stake this ‘ideal worker’ assumption, which does not fit the current reality of dual-earner or singleearner families. Moreover, when men want to participate more in the family or want to make use of legal rights like parental leave, they are discriminated against (Santos, 2010). Such behaviour is criticised by both co-workers and supervisors, not so much because these actions are costly to the organisation, but mainly because of the prevailing masculinity ideology (Santos, 2010). The underlying model is one where work and family life are seen as separate spheres. Whilst this fallacy persists in the organisational world, it is women who bear the brunt of any difficulties in balancing these two spheres, but men’s involvement in the family is also limited (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007).The labour market has changed only to the extent that it is more shared by men and women. These difficulties of balancing work and family are, as previously noted, accentuated by an unequal allocation of household chores and childcare between partners. Similar to what is found in other countries, in Portugal women tend to do more housework than men even when both partners are engaged in the labour force (Amâncio, 2007; Fontaine, Andrade, Matias, Gato & Mendonça, 2007; Perista, 2002; Poeschl, 2000; Wall & Guerreiro, 2005). A classic division of labour still prevails, with women being perceived as naturally suited to expressive functions such as performing domestic and care work and men as naturally suited to instrumental activities displayed through labour market work. 14 The reproduction of difference: gender and the global division of labour Not only do women perform more household chores but the types of tasks they perform are also quite distinct. Women perform more domestic and childcare-related chores (preparing meals, doing the laundry, caring work, ironing, cleaning the house) while men perform more repair and maintenance tasks (washing the car, gardening, paying bills) (Fontaine et al., 2007; Perista, 2002; Wall & Guerreiro, 2005). The first kind of task is more time-consuming and routine, cannot be postponed and occurs inside the house; while the second type of task has a more precise beginning and end, can be performed in a variety of schedules and very often takes place outdoors (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000; Coltrane, 2000; Gupta, 1999; Presser, 1994). Therefore not only do women spend more time doing family work but the types of task that they perform also imply a heavier burden. In line with Hochschild´s definition of ‘emotional work’, promoting the emotional well-being of family members, sustaining ties with relatives and developing significant networks outside the family are also women’s responsibility (Coltrane, 2000). These distinctions between the type of family work men and women perform reveals a pervasive gender specialisation effect. The female-typed tasks are required daily and clearly imply the nurturing and caring abilities women are expected to have, while the male-typed tasks are more associated with instrumental roles (e.g. repairing tasks). It can be argued that men and women are expected to ‘affirm’ and ‘produce’ their gender identities by performing domestic tasks, suggesting a process whereby these roles are reinforced through the performance of these tasks (Coltrane, 2000). Several theoretical models have made a valuable contribution to the explanation of the persistence of a gendered division of labour within the family (Kluwer, 1998; Mikula, 1998; Shelton & John, 1996). One of the models, the relative resource model, claims that income can be used in exchange for not performing domestic labour. Taking this assumption into account, we would expect that the increased involvement of married women in the labour force, and their consequent greater contribution to the household income, would lead to a more equitable division of labour in the home over time. However, the relation between women’s earnings and participation in the household seems to be far more complex. Studies focusing on the relationship between relative earnings and housework in couples where women out-earn their partners have questioned this assumption (Bittman, England, Sayer, Folbre, & Matheson, 2003; Brines, 1994). Brines (1994) found that women who out-earn their partners still perform most of the household chores. Another explanation comes from the gender role ideology that states that unequal divisions of family work stem from the internalisation of gendered beliefs about men’s’ and women’s’ roles in the family. In fact, men with less traditional gender attitudes do more family work and women with less traditional gender attitudes do less family work (Greenstein, 1996; Presser, 1994). Nevertheless, there is an interaction between husbands’ and wives’ attitudes so that husbands do little domestic labour unless both they and their wives hold non-traditional beliefs about gender (Greenstein, 1996). Closely associated with this explanation is the ‘doing gender’ or ‘social-construction of gender’ perspective which assumes that marriage and other intimate relationships provide arenas for displaying these beliefs (West & Zimmerman, 1987). The motivation Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 6, Number 1. Spring, 2012 15 to display one’s gender is stronger when people deviate from their gender roles in some aspect. Therefore, as family work is more closely related to women’s traditional gender role, when they deviate from this role, because, for instance, they are spending a lot of time on professional work or earning more money than their partners, they can compensate for this deviation by doing more family work. Similarly, men who deviate from their traditional gender role, for instance by being unemployed or earning little money can display their gender by not performing family work. Support for this approach has been found in the previously-mentioned study by Brines (1994) among women who out-earned their partners, and also by Greenstein (1996) in his study of matching gender beliefs. In sum, the symbolic construction of housework means that the distribution of family work can not be explained exclusively by rational choice. In Portugal, the dominant gender role model remains a traditional one: men are expected to be the main family providers and women to be responsible for the family’s household chores and emotional well being. In order to be considered by society as a ‘good’ man or woman, partners need to conform to this dominant model. According to the ‘doing gender’ perspective, this process is activated when gender identity becomes more salient, for instance after marriage or parenthood. A study of 245 Portuguese dual-earner households with toddlers found not only that the division of family tasks was unequal but also that women perceived themselves to be more burdened than men. Nevertheless, both men and women were satisfied with this unbalanced division of family and work (Fontaine et al., 2007). This apparent paradox was explained by the degree of partner participation in family tasks and by the level of gratification derived from these tasks. In order to reduce the distress caused by the gap between the ideal and the real division of tasks, individuals must narrow this gap cognitively, altering their perception of the amount of work performed (Kroska, 2003). According to Kroska’s (2003) view on the meaning attached to household chores, individuals change the meanings attached to elements of the situation which are inconsistent with their own identity. Rather than changing their identities, individuals may revise their understandings of housework arrangements so that these elements become congruent with the situational identity. Thus, the more gratified the individual is with the performance of family tasks and the more his/her partner participates in these tasks, the more he/she is satisfied with the division of labour (Fontaine et al., 2007). Another explanation may be derived from the sense of entitlement that men and women have (Major, 1993). Because of their socialisation to gender roles, women and men may perceive a traditional division of family work as legitimate because it matches their expectations as well as their comparison standards. On the one hand, men (holding traditional gender beliefs) may consider that their wives’ performance of family work is consistent with their expectations of married women, and women may do likewise (Greenstein, 1996). On the other hand, women may compare themselves with other women and their husbands with other men, rather than comparing themselves with their husbands. These comparisons lead women to feel better-off than their mothers or other women (Poeschl, 2007). Thus, satisfaction with an objective unfair division of tasks is influenced by the degree of solidarity shown by the partners (Fontaine et al., 2007), by the sense of entitlement from each partner to the other's 16 The reproduction of difference: gender and the global division of labour contribution to housework, and by the comparison process. Additionally, because men’s involvement in the family role is socially not expected, it can be interpreted as a matter of choice rather than an obligation. When something is performed out of choice it leads to greater satisfaction (Kroska, 2003). Men are currently being called upon to do their family duties (Aboim, 2007; Gerson, 1993; Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007; Gupta, 1999). Nevertheless this request for participation is embedded in tough negotiations between old and new models of gender (Aboim, 2010). While the majority of both Portuguese men (82%) and women (88%) agree that men should be more involved in the family, a significant proportion of men (80%) and women (77%) also consider that when women work outside the home, children suffer (Aboim, 2010). Moreover, men seem to have replaced the sole breadwinner model with a ‘continuous worker model’ (Wall, 2007). Some type of modified traditionalism seems to be gaining ground (Gerson, 2002), whereby men have a pathway of continuous work, while participating moderately in the family, while women work as long as they can and take the main responsibility for the family (Gerson, 2002). Men’s low participation in the family can also be related to the lack of role models from previous generations (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007). Nevertheless, a more intrafamilial explanation can be derived from the power and decision-making framework. In order to preserve their authority and their status in the family, some women may resist men’s greater involvement in family tasks by ‘gatekeeping’ the domestic sphere. Thompson and Walker (1989) suggest that wives may actively prevent their husbands from undertaking household chores by setting high standards of family work execution or complaining about their partner’s performance. As paid labour is more valued than family work and this is consistently seen as men’s competence, women may resist giving up or sharing their sphere of competence and power. In addition, men’s assumed domestic incompetence and emotional inexpressiveness may also act as resources that men use to protect their privileged status (Coltrane & Adams, 2001), as emotional connection and care providing are less valued than economically providing for the family (Gerson, 2002). Thus, individuals may use the argument that men are less able to do domestic and childcare tasks and build an ‘expert-mother, helper-father’ relationship. Not surprisingly, women with gender-traditional attitudes will make more use of maternal gatekeeping, as shown by Greenstein (1996) who found that wives’ gender role attitudes were more determinant of men’s participation in family chores, especially feminine related chores, than husband’s attitudes. These explanations can be linked with the ‘doing gender’ perspective discussed earlier. In order to build, confirm or reinforce their gender identities, people refer to masculine and feminine models which vary according to social and personal values. In Portugal, the dominant gender role model is a traditional one: men are expected to be the main family providers and women to be responsible for family chores and emotional well being. Moreover, women are also expected to restructure their careers and cut back on paid labour in order to balance work and family demands (Andrade, 2006; 2010b; 2011). In order to be considered by society as a ‘good’ man or woman, partners need to conform to this dominant model. What is more, data suggest that the reduction in the number of hours Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 6, Number 1. Spring, 2012 17 working women devote to family tasks (compared with non-working women) is not due to higher participation of men in these tasks but due to external paid or unpaid help (Amâncio, 2007) performed by other women such as extended family members or hired daily helpers (Perista, 2007). Despite the fact that women’s strategies for dealing with the division of household chores have generally received the most attention from researchers, men’s more passive strategies for avoiding household chores, like ‘forgetting’ to carry out household tasks or waiting for instructions, may also be important to analyse (Hochschild & Machung, 1999; Thompson &Walker, 1989). Negative perspective on work-family relations: costs of combining multiple roles The conflicting demands imposed by work and family roles have led to a dominant view of work-family relations as essentially negative. For instance, research points out that dual-earner households face high levels of stress and lack of sufficient time to combine all roles. This line of study is grounded in the scarcity hypothesis, which assumes that individual resources, like time, attention and energy, are limited and that as the individual assigns time or energy to one role, this inevitably drains away resources from the other role. In other words the demands from different domains compete with each other in terms of time and energy (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Inter-role conflict can occur in a bidirectional manner (Frone, Russel & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2003). Negative moods, tension and lack of time related to the work role may conflict with the performance of the family role (family-to-work conflict); simultaneously, negative moods, tension and lack of time resulting from the fulfillment of family responsibilities may conflict with the performance of the work role (work-tofamily conflict). The majority of studies undertaken in Portugal refer mainly to a conflict perspective, because Portuguese women engage in a ‘second shift’ after their professional work schedule (Hochshild & Machung, 1999). The existence of this second shift has been found in several Portuguese surveys, including the Famwork research project1 and the International Social Survey Programme. The former was carried out in nine European countries with the aim of identifying how dual-earner couples with toddlers perceive their work and family balance2 and the latter was developed among 17 European countries including Portugal. Both studies showed that Portuguese women have higher rates of work and family stress when compared to their European counterparts in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, 1 The authors were part of the Portuguese team of the Famwork Project. This project, funded by the European Union, was conducted by a consortium of the following universities: University of Fribourg (Switzerland), University Graz (Austria), University of Jyväskylä (Finland), University of Mons (Belgium), University of Munich (Germany), University of Nijmegen (Netherlands), University of Palermo (Italy), University of Porto (Portugal), and University of Toulouse-le-Mirail (France). 2 This research made an important distinction between ‘work-to-family conflict’, which occurs when conflict originates in the workplace and interferes with the family, and ‘family-to-work conflict’ which arises when conflict originates in the family and interferes with work. 18 The reproduction of difference: gender and the global division of labour Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands (Famwork, 2005; Guerreiro & Carvalho, 2007). Portuguese women also exhibit work-to-family conflict at higher levels (Famwork, 2005; Guerreiro & Carvalho, 2007; Santos, 2010). Possible explanations for these results are the long work schedules for working parents and the lack of organisational support for the family in Portugal. Indeed, Portuguese individuals, especially women, did report low levels of family-friendliness in their workplaces (Famwork, 2005). Portuguese men report the highest levels of work-to-family conflict, together with Austrian, Belgian, German, and Swiss men, but report the lowest levels of family-to-work conflict (Famwork, 2005). Work stress and professional work schedules are the main predictors of work-to-family conflict, regardless of country and gender. Thus, because Portuguese men and women engage in very long working schedules and suffer tension in their professional roles, their levels of work-to-family conflict are high. However, in relation to family-to-work conflicts, the findings are more diverse (Famwork, 2005). In effect, for Portuguese women, high family stress, spending few hours on household chores and low appreciation from the partner regarding the housework performed predict high family-to-work conflict (Matias, 2007; Matias, Andrade & Fontaine, 2011) while for men high family stress and spending long hours on childcare tasks have a strong effect on family-to-work conflict (Matias, Andrade & Fontaine, 2011). The fact that for Portuguese women, a low performance of domestic chores is associated with high family-to-work conflict cannot be explained by a rational assessment of their work, once again providing supporting evidence for the importance of gender roles. Through the performance of housework, women act according to their traditional gender roles, reinforcing their gender identity (Brines, 1994; West & Zimmerman, 1987), which in turn buffers the negative impact of these tasks on conflict. Engaging in traditional gender roles may also have negative impacts. Andrade and Bould (in press) found that mothers’ burden of childcare activities and perceptions of injustice in the division of these activities, strongly affect their relationship satisfaction and have a negative impact on a mother’s intention to have another child. Positive perspective of work-family relations: benefits of multiple roles Over the last ten years there has been a shift in the work-family literature in which the research focus has moved from an essentially negative perspective to a more positive one, focusing on the positive outcomes that can be derived from balancing multiple roles (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Most employed women and men believe that strong benefits will be gained from combining work and family and that these benefits outweigh the costs (Torres, 2004). This perspective is based on the ‘role expansion’ or ‘role promotion’ approaches (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000), which suggest that participation in multiple roles can provide individuals with a greater number of opportunities and resources that can be used to promote growth and better functioning across several life domains (Barnett, 1998). In this perspective, resources are not viewed as scarce or limited but as flexible and capable of being transferred from one role to another, promoting better functioning, satisfaction and sense of self-worth (Grzywacz Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 6, Number 1. Spring, 2012 19 & Marks, 2000; Kirchmeyer, 1992). In fact, combining multiple roles has been found to be associated with stronger organisational commitment, higher job satisfaction and personal growth (Kirchmeyer, 1992). This process, which may be labelled as ‘facilitation’, can be defined as ‘the extent to which participation at work (or home) is made easier by virtue of the experiences, skills, and opportunities gained or developed at home (or work)’ (Frone, 2003:145). As with conflict, the facilitation process is also bidirectional. Positive moods, benefits and resources can be gained in the work role and transferred to the family role (work-to-family facilitation) or resources, benefits and moods associated with the family role can be transferred to the work role (family-work facilitation). Using the facilitation framework, a study by Andrade and Matias (2009) found that, among dual-earners, flexible supervision at the workplace promoted work-to-family facilitation and work satisfaction in women. This may be due to the fact that supervisor support is not compulsory and thus enhances a family’s supportive work environment (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). As a consequence, it might help individuals cope better with family issues (Voydanoff, 2004), especially women who have the main responsibility for childcare and family tasks. Concerning the positive relations between family and work, higher levels of marital satisfaction and men’s participation in the household are associated with women’s family-work facilitation (Matias & Fontaine, 2011a). However, for men, the perception of being burdened with household tasks diminishes their family-work facilitation. This may be due to the fact that men’s perception of burden is greater regarding chores which are not associated with their traditional gender role. Nevertheless, men’s participation in household tasks has the opposite impact on the facilitation process for men and for women. This raises some questions about the best way to divide family tasks between Portuguese men and women (Matias & Fontaine, 2011a). Attitudes towards the division of roles and tasks in the family are undergoing a significant transition: even if the mother continues to have the main responsibility for childcare, a higher participation of men in family chores is also expected (Wall, 2007). Despite their contribution to household chores, this is not enough to match women’s participation and it refers mainly to childcare tasks (Aboim, 2007; Crompton & Lyonette, 2008). Because gender roles are in flux, it is difficult for individuals to identify and comply with what others expect. Though raised in very traditional environments, these men are probably the first generation in Portugal to be called upon to do their family duties (Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007). Thus, men are assuming family roles that are still new to them. The current fluidity in men’s family gender role (to be the breadwinner and also to participate more in childcare) may be causing them dissonance and strain. Multiple roles: adaptive strategies and outcomes So far we have been discussing the way the division of tasks is being performed among Portuguese families. Nevertheless, to fully grasp the work-family interface it is important to focus also on the strategies used to cope with the responsibilities of both roles. This is addressed in this final section. 20 The reproduction of difference: gender and the global division of labour The literature offers a comprehensive model of how individuals and families approach the work-family interface (Voydanoff, 2008). According to this model, dealing with multiple roles implies an assessment of fit. Work-family fit is a linking mechanism that derives from assessing the relative demands and resources associated with work, family and community roles. There is fit when the individual has the abilities needed to meet the demands, and misfit occurs when demands and needs exceed individual abilities and resources. The perception of misfit between work and family demands and resources leads individuals and families to take action to reduce this lack of congruence. One type of strategy could be changing the demands associated with one of the roles (for example by cutting back on work hours, reducing work responsibilities or limiting housework) and another strategy could be to increase resources (for example by taking a more flexible job or hiring support services). Nevertheless, this conceptualisation does not encompass the use of individual skills and abilities to deal with multiple roles nor does it consider individuals’ and families’ strategies to avoid misfit. According to Moen and Chesley (2008), adaptive strategies include individual agency and individuals and families are active decision-makers in dealing with work-family arrangements. Due to the complexities of work-family balance, viewing the work-family interface as merely a means of solving problems and overcoming difficulties seems incomplete. A conceptualisation of coping that takes into consideration the individual’s, as well as the family’s, proactive choice of actions, also including emotional strategies, will add to our understanding of work-family balance. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, organisational and public facilities in Portugal are inadequate for family needs (Famwork, 2005; Guerreiro & Abrantes, 2007). Thus, analysing work-family balance exclusively as a matter of increasing resources will not give us the complete picture of the way families balance their roles. In managing multiple roles individuals are proactive (Moen & Yu, 2000) and rely on their own private solutions (Haddock, Ziemba, Zimmerman & Current, 2001; Matias & Fontaine, 2011b; Skinner & McCubbin, 1987). Empirical studies in Portugal have stressed the importance of individual traits, abilities and positive appraisals for achieving a better balance of work and family. In a study of dual-earner families with and without children, Matias and Fontaine (2011b) found five types of reconciliation strategy: partner coping; positive attitude towards multiple roles; use of management and planning skills; professional adjustments; and institutional support. Partner coping refers to couples supporting each other and time spent together. Positive attitudes toward multiple roles refers to a positive view about being a dual-earner family. These two dimensions are essentially dyadic and relational. The third type of strategy, use of management and planning skills, refers to a personal way of coping with work-family responsibilities. Making professional adjustments implies reducing the involvement of one of the partners in work. Finally, an instrumental strategy is evident in the use of institutional support, such as using childcare and free time facilities or canteens for children’s’ lunch. Couple and family negotiation is evident in these types of strategies. Strategies associated with the promotion and exchange of positive emotions in the family and creating harmonious environments motivate individuals to strive to balance work and family life and Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 6, Number 1. Spring, 2012 21 may also protect them from the adversities and difficulties of this balance (Matias & Fontaine 2011b). This study clearly shows that increasing resources (use of institutional support) or limiting demands (professional adjustments) are only part of the solution when trying to deal with multiple roles. Similar results have been obtained from qualitative studies. Increasing resources, such as outsourcing to ease the domestic burden (e.g. daily help, a paid laundry service, take-away meals, etc) and using childcare facilities or limiting demands, including asking for flexitime or working fewer hours, are desired strategies to help to find the balance, though they are not very often available or affordable. Again, intra-familial strategies like managing time and assigning tasks to other family members, allocating time for family activities and valuing family moments seem very useful and are frequently used for achieving a better work-family balance (Matias, Fontaine, Simão, Oliveira & Mendonça 2010; Núncio; 2008). Concluding Remarks In this final section, we remind readers of two major factors affecting the balance of work and family roles in Portugal: the influence of traditional gender roles on the division of unpaid work and the egalitarian participation of women and men in the workforce. Both have profound implications for the attitudes and practices related to work-life balance in Portuguese dual-earning couples. While female labour force participation brings Portugal nearer to egalitarian societies, where advances are being made towards gender equity in the division of roles, attitudes and practices, the division of unpaid labour still resembles that which prevails in those societies where the male breadwinner model is the norm. Thus, not surprisingly, women’s dual role accounts for higher levels of work-family conflict and burden when compared to other European countries (Famwork, 2005; Guerreiro & Carvalho, 2007). Analyses of individual attitudes reveal that Portuguese couples prefer the dualearner to the breadwinner model (Torres, 2004). However, both men and women maintain traditional attitudes towards motherhood and the division of unpaid labour (Aboim, 2007; Wall, 2007; Wall & Guerreiro, 2005). Socialisation processes, translated into attempts to conform and display traditional gender roles within the family, play a very important role. Therefore, when women do not perform childcare according to the socially-prescribed standards they report higher levels of family-to-work conflict, and when men feel themselves burdened by the performance of household chores they report less family-to-work facilitation. Both these situations defy traditional gender roles and supply evidence of some resistance to change in family practices. Nevertheless, some changes within the organisation of families can also be noticed: women benefit when their partners contribute to household chores (Matias & Fontaine, 2011a); young fathers are participating more in childcare even though their contribution is still small when compared to that of mothers (Aboim, 2007); and younger generations hold more egalitarian attitudes towards gender roles than their parents (Andrade, 2006). In addition, institutional support policies, as well as workplace measures, are becoming progressively more responsive to changes occurring in dual-earner families. 22 The reproduction of difference: gender and the global division of labour Nevertheless, there is a gap between intentions to develop family-friendly policies and the real awareness and use of these policies by individuals. This may be due to the widespread representation of the worker as an individual who performs only one role, the professional one. Meanwhile, a large number of Portuguese dual-earner families struggle to combine work and family roles using individual and familial resources (Matias & Fontaine, 2011b; Matias et al, 2010; Núncio, 2008). Finally, we encourage future research to focus on attitudes to and practices of gender roles in the context of family-work relations in Portugal. Given the co-existence of traditional gendered ideals concerning participation in the family and modern ideals concerning participation in the professional role, and the discrepancies between couples’ ideals and their reality in work and family balance, the commitment to achieve equality could be hindered by the gendered perception of who should do what. Time, investment and emotional work are easily blended in the display of women´s family role, providing grounds for the persistence of inequalities within the family. And because inequalities within the family can easily spread to inequalities in the broader society, Portuguese women’s participation in the labour force and family roles deserves particular attention, in a society that places a greater emphasis on the importance of family. © Marisa Matias, Cláudia Andrade and Anne Marie Fontaine, 2012 REFERENCES Aboim, S. (2007) ‘Clivagens e continuidades de género face à família em Portugal e noutros países europeus’. [Gender cleavages and continuities towards family in Portugal and in other European countries]. In K. Wall e L. Amâncio (eds.), Família e género, atitudes sociais dos Portugueses (pp.3591) [Family and Gender in Portugal and in Europe]. Lisboa, Portugal: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. Aboim, S. (2010)‘Género, família e mudança em Portugal.’ [Gender, family and change in Portugal]. In K. Wall, S. Aboim & V. Cunha (coords.), A vida familiar no masculino: negociando velhas e novas masculinidades[Family life in maculine: negotiating old and new masculinities]. Lisboa, Portugal: CITE:39-66. Amâncio, L. (2007)‘Género e divisão do trabalho doméstico – o caso português em perspectiva’. [Gender and domestic work division – perspectives on the Portuguese situation]. In K. Wall e L. Amâncio (eds.), Família e género, atitudes sociais dos Portugueses (pp.181-210) [Family and Gender in Portugal and in Europe]. Lisboa, Portugal: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. Andrade, C. & S. Bould (2012) ‘Child-care burden and intentions to have a second child: effects of perceived justice in the division of child-care’, International Review of Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 1. Aboim, S. (2007) ‘Clivagens e continuidades de género face à família em Portugal e noutros países europeus’. [Gender cleavages and continuities towards family in Portugal and in other European countries]. In K. Wall e L. Amâncio (eds.), Família e género, atitudes sociais dos Portugueses (pp.3591) [Family and Gender in Portugal and in Europe]. Lisboa, Portugal: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. Aboim, S. (2010)‘Género, família e mudança em Portugal.’ [Gender, family and change in Portugal]. In K. Wall, S. Aboim & V. Cunha (coords.), A vida familiar no masculino: negociando velhas e novas masculinidades [Family life in maculine: negotiating old and new masculinities]. Lisboa, Portugal: CITE: 39-66. Amâncio, L. (2007)‘Género e divisão do trabalho doméstico – o caso português em perspectiva’. [Gender and domestic work division – perspectives on the Portuguese situation], in K. Wall e L. Amâncio (eds.), Família e género, atitudes sociais dos Portugueses [Family and Gender in Portugal and in Europe]. Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais:181-210. Andrade, C. (2011) Gender, Generations and Work-Family Relations in Portugal, Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing. Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 6, Number 1. Spring, 2012 23 Barnett, R. (1998) ‘Toward a review and reconceptualisation of the work/family literature’, Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 124 (2):125-153. Bianchi, S. M., M. A. Milkie, L. C. Sayer & J. P. Robinson, (2000) ‘Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor’, Social Forces, 79:191-228. Bittman, M., P. England, L. Sayer, N. Folbre, & G. Matheson (2003) ‘When gender trumps money? Bargaining and time in the household’, American Journal of Sociology, 109:186-214. Brines, J. (1994) ‘Economic dependency, gender and the division of labor at home’, American Journal of Sociology, 100 (3):652-688. Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2003) A igualdade de oportunidades entre homens e mulheres em contexto organizacional [Equal opportunities between men and women in the organizational context], Braga: Escola de Economia e Gestão. Coltrane, S. & M. Adams (2001) ‘Men’s family work: Child –centered fathering and the sharing of domestic labor’, in R. Hertz & N. Marshall (eds.) Working families: The transformation of the American home, Los Angeles: University of California Press:72-99. Coltrane, S. (2000) ‘Research on household labour: modelling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62:1208-1233. Crompton R. & C. Lyonette (2008) ‘Who does the housework? The division of labour within the home’, in A. Park, A.J. Curtice, K. Thomson, M. Phillips, M. Johnson & E. Clery (eds.) British Social Attitudes: 24th Report, London:Sage:53–80. Eurostat (2010) ‘Employment rate of adults by sex, age groups, highest level of education attained, number of children and age of youngest child’. Retrieved on 14 June 2011from http://appsso.eurostat. ec.europa.eu/nui/setupUpdateInfo.do. Famwork Research Consortium (2005) Family life and professional work: Conflict and synergy (final report). Retrieved on 30 June, 2006 from: http://www.eu-project-famwork.org. Fontaine, A., C. Andrade, M. Matias, J Gato & M. Mendonça (2007) ‘Family and work division in dual earner families in Portugal’, in I. Crespi (ed.), Gender mainstreaming and family policy in Europe: perspectives, research and debates, Milan: Vita e Pensiero. Frone, M. (2003) ‘Work-family balance’, in J. Quick & L. Tetrick (eds.) Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association:143-162. Frone, M., M. Russell & M. Cooper (1992) ‘Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (1):65-78. Gerson, K. (1993) No man’s land: men’s changing commitments to family and work, New York: Basic Books. Gerson, K. (2002) ‘Moral dilemmas, moral strategies, and the transformation of gender: Lessons from two generations of work and family change’, Gender and Society, 16 (1):8-28. Greenhaus, J. & N. Beutell (1985) ‘Sources of conflict between work and family roles’, Academy of Management Review, 10 (1):76-88. Greenhaus, J. & G. Powell (2003) ‘When work and family collide: decide between competing role demands’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90:291-303. Greenstein, T. (1996) ‘Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: Interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ “gender ideologies”’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58:585-595. Grzywacz, J. & N.Marks (2000) ‘Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 (1):111-126. Guerreiro, M. & P. Abrantes (2007) Transições Incertas: Os Jovens Perante o Trabalho e a Família, [Uncertain Transitions: Young Adults in Work and Family], Lisbon: CITE. Guerreiro, M. & H. Carvalho (2007) ‘O stress na relação trabalho-família: Uma análise comparativa’ [Stress in the work-family relation: A comparative analysis], in K. Wall, & L. Amâncio (eds.) Família e Género em Portugal e na Europa [Family and Gender in Portugal and in Europe], Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais: 93-128. Gupta, S. (1999) ‘The effects of transitions in marital status on men's performance of housework’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61:700-711. Haddock, S., S. Ziemba, T. Zimmerman & L. Current (2001) ‘Ten adaptive strategies for family and work balance: Advice from successful families’, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27 (4):445-458. 24 The reproduction of difference: gender and the global division of labour Hochschild, A. & A. Machung (1999) The Second Shift: Working Parents and Revolution at Home, New York: Avon. INE (2010) Estatísticas do emprego e da população [Employment and Population Statistics]. Retrieved on 20 June, 2011 from http://www.pordata.pt/. Kirchmeyer, C. (1992) ‘Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conflict-ridden domain relationships’, Basic and Applied Psychology, 13 (2):231-249. Kluwer, E. (1998) ‘Responses to gender inequality in the division of family work: The status quo effect’, Social Justice Research, 11 (3):337-357. Kossek, E. & Ozeki, C. (1998) ‘Work-family conflict, policies and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behaviour-human resources research’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2):139-149. Kroska, A. (2003) ‘Investigating gender differences in the meaning of household chores and childcare’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 (2):456-473. Larsen, T. & J. Hadlow (2003) Multi-Career Families, Work and Care in Finland, France, Italy, Portugal and the UK. Retrieved on 12 September, 2011 from: http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/sostut/ soccare/report3.pdf. Major, B. (1993) ‘Gender, entitlement and the distribution of family labor’, Journal of Social Issues, 49:141-159. Matias, M. & A. M. Fontaine (2011a) ‘The Role of Gender When Family Intersects Work: Conflict or Facilitation?,’ Psicologia, Educação e Cultura, 25 (2):337-354. Matias, M. & A. M. Fontaine (2011b) ‘Managing Multiple Roles: Development of the Work-Family Strategies Scale’, Paper presented at the Community, Work and Family International Conference, Tampere, Finland. Matias, M., A. M. Fontaine, C.Simão, E. Oliveira & M. Mendonça (2010) ‘A conciliação trabalhofamília em casais de duplo-emprego’ [Work and family conciliation in dual-earner couples], in C. Nogueira, I. Silva, L. Lima, A.T. Almeida, R. Cabecinhas, R. Gomes, C. Machado, A. Maia, A. Sampaio & M. C. Taveira (eds.), Actas do VII Simpósio Nacional de Investigação em Psicologia, [National Symposium on Psychology Research], Retrieved on 13 December, 2010 from http:// www.actassnip2010.com/ conteudos/actas/PsiFam_1.pdf. Matias, M., C. Andrade & A. M. Fontaine (2011) ‘Diferenças de género no conflito trabalhofamília: Um estudo com famílias portuguesas de duplo-emprego com filhos em idade pré-escolar’ [Gender differences in work-family conflict: A study with Portuguese dual-earner families with toddlers], Psicologia, 25 (1):9-32. Matias. M. (2007) Vida profissional e familiar: Padrões de conflito e facilitação na gestão de múltiplos papéis [Family and Work Life: Patterns of conflict and facilitation in multiple role management], Masters dissertation, University of Porto. Mikula, G. (1998) ‘Division of household labor and perceived justice: A growing field of research’, Social Justice Research, 11:215-241. Moen, P. & N. Chesley, N. (2008) ‘Toxic job ecologies, time convoys, and work-family conflict: Can families (re)gain control and life course “fit”?’, in K. Korabik, D. Lero & D. Whitehead (eds.), Handbook of Work-Family Integration, London: Elsevier:95-123. Moen, P. & Y. Yu (2000) ‘Effective work/life strategies: Working couples, work conditions, gender, and quality of life’, Social Problems, 47 (3):291-326. Núncio, M. (2008) Mulheres em dupla-jornada: A conciliação entre o trabalho e a família [Women in dual-shift: Work and family reconciliation], Lisbon: Instituo Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas. Perista, H. (2002) ‘Género e trabalho não pago: Os tempos das mulheres e os tempos dos homens’ [Gender and unpaid work: The times of women and men], Análise Social, 37 (163):447-474. Perista, H. (2007) ‘A partilha do privado’ [Sharing the private], in. L. Amâncio, M. Tavares, T. Joaquim & T. S. Almeida (eds.) O Longo Caminho das Mulheres: Feminismos 80 Anos Depois [Women’s Long Road: Feminism 80 Years Later]. Lisbon: Publicações Dom Quixote:365-374. Pfau-Effinger, B. (1999) ‘The modernization of family and motherhood in Western Europe’, in R. Crompton (ed.), Restructuring gender relations and employment, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Work organisation, labour & globalisation Volume 6, Number 1. Spring, 2012 25 Poeschl, G. & R. Serôdio (1998) ‘Rôles de genre, travail familial et pouvoir familial: représentations et relations’ [Gender roles, family work and power over the family: representations and relationships], La Revue Internationale de l´Education Familiale, 2:5-23. Poeschl, G. & A. Silva (2001) ‘Efeito das crenças nas diferenças entre sexos na percepção e no julgamento das práticas familiares’ [Beliefs about sex differences and practices in the family], Psicologia, 15:93-113. Poeschl, G. (2007) ‘What family organization tells us about fairness and power in marital relationships’, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1 (1):557-571. Poeschl. G. (2000) ‘Trabalho doméstico e poder familiar: Práticas, normas e ideais’ [Housework and family power: Practices, norms and ideals], Análise Social, 35:156), 695-719. Presser, H. (1994) ‘Employment schedules among dual-earner spouses and the division of household labor by gender’, American Sociological Review, 59:348-364. Santos, G. (2010) ‘Gestão, trabalho e relações sociais de género’ [Management, work and gendered social relations], in V. Ferreira (ed.), A Igualdade de Mulheres e Homens no Trabalho e no Emprego em Portugal – Políticas e Circunstâncias [Equality between Women and Men in Work and Employment in Portugal – Policies and Circumstances], Lisbon: CITE:99-138. Shelton, B. A. & D. John. (1996) ‘The division of household labor’ Annual Review of Sociology, 22:299-322. Skinner, D. & H. McCubbin (1987) ‘Coping in dual-employed families: Spousal differences’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Washington, DC. Soccare Project (2004) New kinds of families, new kinds of social care (final report) Retrieved on 12 September, 2011 from: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/citizens/docs/kina21322ensfinal_soccare.pdf Sümer, S., J. Smithson, M.Guerreiro & L. Granlund (2008) ‘Becoming working mothers: Reconciling work and family at three particular workplaces in Norway, the UK and Portugal’, Community, Work and Family, 11 (4):365-384. Thompson, L. & A. Walker (1989) ‘Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51:845-871. Torres, A. (2004) Vida conjugal e trabalho: Uma perspectiva sociológica [Conjugal life and work: A sociological perspective], Oeiras: Celta Editora. Torres, A., F. Silva, T. Monteiro & M. Cabrita (2005) Homens e mulheres entre família e trabalho [Men and women between family and work], Lisbon: CITE. Voydanoff, P. (2004) ‘Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-tofamily conflict and facilitation’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9 (4):275-285. Voydanoff, P. (2008) ‘A conceptual model of the work-family interface’, in K. Korabik, D. Lero & D. Whitehead (eds.), Handbook of Work-Family Integration, London: Elsevier:37-56. Wall, K. & M. D. Guerreiro (2005) ‘A divisão familiar do trabalho’ [The division of family work], In K. Wall (ed.), Famílias em Portugal: Percursos, interacções, redes sociais [Families in Portugal: Pathways, interactions and social networks], Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais:303-362. Wall, K. (2005) Famílias em Portugal: percursos, interacções, redes sociais [Families in Portugal: pathways, interactions and social networks], Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. Wall, K. (2007) ‘Atitudes face a divisão familiar do trabalho em Portugal e na Europa’ [Attitudes towards the division of family work in Portugal and in Europe], in K. Wall e L. Amâncio (eds,), Família e género, atitudes sociais dos Portugueses [Family and gender – Portuguese social attitudes], Lisbon: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais:211-257. West, C. & Zimmerman, D. (1987) ‘Doing gender’, Gender & Society, 1 (2):125-151. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Marisa Matias was awarded a doctoral grant from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (SFRH/BD 35963/2007) which contributed to the work presented in this paper. 26 The reproduction of difference: gender and the global division of labour