Domestic Labor Sharing and Preference for Son: Children's Perspective
Keywords:
Downloads
Abstract
The main aim of this study was to find out through the perception of children whether there is a significant association between the sharing of domestic labor and preference for sons between fathers and mothers. This study used a cluster sampling method to select 1982 secondary students from Malaysia to answer questionnaires. The results showed significant associations between the preference for sons and the sharing of domestic labor between fathers and mothers in the perception of children. These significant associations could still be found after logistic regression controlling for some background factors. In the light of the continuing prevalence of preference for sons in some Asian countries, it is suggested that more studies are needed to examine the possible influence of preference on culture in different areas.
Downloads
References
Banister, J. (2004). Shortage of girls in China today. Journal of Population Research, 21(1), 19–45.
Google Scholar CrossrefBlair, S. L., & Lichter, D. T. (1991). Measuring the division of household labor. Journal of family issues, 12(1), 91.
Google Scholar CrossrefBrines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. The American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 652–688.
Google Scholar CrossrefCentral intelligence agency. (2011). CIA - The World Factbook. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html
Google Scholar CrossrefChen, L. C., Huq, E., & D’souza, S. (1981). Sex bias in the family allocation of food and health care in rural Bangladesh. Population and development review, 7(1), 55–70.
Google Scholar CrossrefCoale, A. J., & Banister, J. (1994). Five decades of missing females in China. Demography, 31(3), 459–479.
Google Scholar CrossrefColtrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1208–1233.
Google Scholar CrossrefCoverman, S., & Sheley, J. F. (1986). Change in men’s housework and child-care time, 1965-1975. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48(2), 413–422.
Google Scholar CrossrefDemo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1993). Family diversity and the division of domestic labor: How much have things really changed? Family Relations, 42(3), 323–331.
Google Scholar CrossrefEdlund, L., Li, H., Yi, J., & Zhang, J. (2007). Sex ratios and crime: Evidence from China’s one-child policy. IZA DP. Retrieved from ftp://repec.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp3214.pdf
Google Scholar CrossrefFerree, M. M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(4), 866–884.
Google Scholar CrossrefGoldscheider, F., & Waite, L. (1991). New Families, No Families? The Transformation of the American Home. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Google Scholar CrossrefGreenstein, T. N. (1996). Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: Interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(3), 585–595.
Google Scholar CrossrefGu, B., & Roy, K. (1995). Sex ratio at birth in China, with reference to other areas in East Asia: what we know. Asia Pacific Population Journal, 10, 17–42.
Google Scholar CrossrefGupta, M. D. (1987). Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India. Population and development review, 13(1), 77–100.
Google Scholar CrossrefGupta, M. D., Zhenghua, J., Bohua, L., Zhenming, X., Chung, W., & Hwa-Ok, B. (2003). Why is son preference so persistent in East and South Asia? A cross-country study of China, India and the Republic of Korea. Journal of Development Studies, 40(2), 153–187.
Google Scholar CrossrefHare-Mustin, R. T., & Hare, S. E. (1986). Family change and the concept of motherhood in China. Journal of Family Issues, 7(1), 67.
Google Scholar CrossrefHartmann, H. I. (1981). The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs, 6(3), 366–394.
Google Scholar CrossrefHo, D. Y. (1981). Traditional patterns of socialization in Chinese society. Acta Psychologica Taiwanica.
Google Scholar CrossrefHo, D. Y. (1989). Continuity and variation in Chinese patterns of socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 149–163.
Google Scholar CrossrefKabeer, N. (2005). Social exclusion: concepts, findings and implications for the MDGs. Retrieved from http://gsdrc.ids.ac.uk/docs/open/SE2.pdf
Google Scholar CrossrefLöfstedt, P., Shusheng, L., & Johansson, A. (2004). Abortion patterns and reported sex ratios at birth in rural Yunnan, China. Reproductive Health Matters, 12(24), 86–95.
Google Scholar CrossrefLee, Y. S., & Waite, L. J. (2005). Husbands’ and wives’ time spent on housework: A comparison of measures. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 328–336.
Google Scholar CrossrefLevine, N. E. (1987). Differential child care in three Tibetan communities: Beyond son preference. Population and Development Review, 13(2), 281–304.
Google Scholar CrossrefLi, J., & Lavely, W. (2003). Village Context, Women’s Status, and Son Preference Among Rural Chinese Women. Rural sociology, 68(1), 87–106.
Google Scholar CrossrefLi, N., Feldman, M. W., & Tuljapurkar, S. (1999). Sex ratio at birth and son preference. Mathematical Population Studies, 8, 91–107.
Google Scholar CrossrefLi, Y. P. (2003). On the ethnic Chinese policy in Malaysia and the relation between the ethnic Chinese and natives. World History, 5(1), 44–52.
Google Scholar CrossrefManke, B., Seery, B. L., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (1994). The three corners of domestic labor: Mothers’, fathers’, and children’s weekday and weekend housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(3), 657–668.
Google Scholar CrossrefMarshall, K. (1993). Employed parents and the division of housework. Perspectives on labour and income, 5(3), 23–30.
Google Scholar CrossrefMiller, B. D. (2001). Female-Selective Abortion in Asia: Patterns, Policies, and Debates. American anthropologist, 103(4), 1083–1095.
Google Scholar CrossrefPong, S. (1994). Sex preference and fertility in Peninsular Malaysia. Studies in Family Planning, 25(3), 137–148.
Google Scholar CrossrefSchulz, F., & Grunow, D. (2007). Comparing Time Diary Data and Stylized Time Use Estimates. The center for research in inequalities and the life course.
Google Scholar CrossrefSecondi, G. S. (2002). Biased childhood sex ratios and the economic status of the family in rural China. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33(2), 215–234.
Google Scholar CrossrefSegawa, N. (2007). Malaysia’s 1996 Education Act: The Impact of a Multiculturalism-type Approach on National Integration. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 22(1), 30–56.
Google Scholar CrossrefShaughnessy, J., Zechmeister, E., & Zechmeister, J. (2005). Research Methods in Psychology 7/e. Psychology.
Google Scholar CrossrefShelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual review of sociology, 22, 299–322.
Google Scholar CrossrefShort, S. E., Fengying, Z., Siyuan, X., & Mingliang, Y. (2000). China’s One-Child Policy and the Care of Children: An Analysis of Qualitative and Quanitative Data. Soc. F., 79, 913.
Google Scholar CrossrefSiah, P. C. (2008). The preference for a son among Chinese Malaysians. Presented at the the Second Convention of Asian Psychological Association, University Malaya.
Google Scholar CrossrefThe Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco: Economic Research. (2007, June 29). The Narrowing of the Male-Female Wage Gap. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2007/el2007-17.html
Google Scholar CrossrefUnited Nation Children’s Fund. (2000). Publications - Domestic Violence against Women and Girls. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/213
Google Scholar CrossrefZhan, H. J. (1996). Chinese Femininity and Social Control: Gender-Role Socialization and the State. Journal of Historical Sociology, 9(3), 269–289.
Google Scholar Crossref
Downloads
Published
Almetric
Dimensions
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under Creative Commons copyright (CC BY). Authors hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles as the original source is cited.
