Work Community, & Family,
Vol. 13, No. 2, May 2010, 189204
Cleaning the sink: exploring the experiences of Australian lesbian
parents reconciling work/family responsibilities
Margot Rawsthorne* and Mayet Costello
Social Work & Policy Studies Program, Room 728, Education Building A35, University of
Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
(Received 3 June 2007; nal version received 15 July 2008)
In many households across Australia the question Who cleans the sink?
symbolises an undertow of disquiet. The gendered patterning of household tasks
remains resolutely resistant to feminist challenges. Despite three decades of
research and policy interest in assisting Australian families reconcile work and
family life, this interaction continues to be a source of stress and conflict. This
paper aims to examine a work/family arrangement under circumstances in which
the traditional gender division of labour is removed in lesbian family
households. It draws on qualitative semi-structured interviews with 17 lesbian
parents living in New South Wales, Australia. Thematic analysis was undertaken
to identify patterns of work and family arrangements in these lesbian-parented
families. The findings suggest that family stress and conflict are lessened in some
lesbian households through the de-stabilising of scripts concerning traditional
gendered division of labour. The paper aims to contribute to the small but
growing lesbian-parenting literature in Australia and also to the broader work/
family literature.
Keywords: work; family; lesbian; Australian
En muchos hogares a traves de Australia, la cuestion que limpia el fregadero?
Simboliza una resaca de inquietud. El patron de genero de las tareas del hogar
sigue siendo decididamente resistentes a desafos feministas. A pesar de tres
decadas de investigacion y las polticas de interes para ayudar a las familias
australianas conciliar la vida laboral y familiar esta interaccion sigue siendo una
fuente de tension y conflicto. Este documento tiene por objeto examinar el trabajo
y la familia de acuerdo a las circunstancias en las que la tradicional division
sexual del trabajo se quita en familias lesbianas. Se basa en cualitativo de
entrevistas semi-estructuradas con 17 padres de lesbianas que viven en Nueva
Gales del Sur, Australia. Analisis tematico se realizo para identificar patrones en
el trabajo y la familia en estos acuerdos lesbianas criaron familias. Los resultados
sugieren que el estres familiar y el conflicto se reduce en algunos hogares de
lesbianas a traves de la desestabilizacion de las escrituras tradicionales de genero
en relacion con la division del trabajo. El documento tiene por objeto contribuir a
la pequena pero creciente literatura lesbiana la crianza de los hijos en Australia,
pero tambien a la mas amplia de trabajo y familia literatura.
Palabras claves: trabajo; familia; lesbianas; Australia
*Corresponding author. Email: [e-mail]
ISSN 1366-8803 print/ISSN 1469-3615
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13668800903259777
http://www.informaworld.com
190
M. Rawsthorne and M. Costello
Introduction
The past decade has seen enormous research and policy interest within Australia and
internationally in helping families reconcile the interaction between work and family
responsibilities. Not surprisingly, to date the research and literature have focused
on arrangements in heterosexual households. The lack of progress towards more
equitable and sustainable work/family arrangements highlighted by recent Australian
studies attest to the embedded nature of gendered patterns of work and care (Pocock,
2003; Smyth, Rawsthorne, & Siminski, 2005; Summers, 2003). This article, drawing
on the experiences of lesbian parents, explores the de-stablisation of these gendered
patterns. It argues that negotiation and valuing care work are key personal and
political strategies for reconciling work and family responsibilities.
Australian work/family research and policy interest have been driven by a
range of factors, including: the revolution in womens workforce participation; the
structural ageing of the population; concern about childhood development; concern
about time-pressure; and concern about human rights (Campbell & Charlesworth,
2004; Craig, 2004; Pocock, Skinner, & Williams, 2007; Smyth et al., 2005; Toohey,
2005; von Doussa, 2007). This research suggests that the experience of parents is
shaped by various sites and factors, including: the home (division of labour, support
networks and extended families); paid work (earning capacities, nature of work,
workplace cultures and family friendly practices); childcare (accessibility, affordability and quality); and social policy (maternity leave, childcare benefits and other
entitlements). Despite the research and policy interest, reconciling work and family
responsibilities continues to be a source of family stress, particularly for mothers
(Pocock, 2003; Smyth et al., 2005; von Doussa, 2007).
Work/family conflict arises when the demands associated with work are
incompatible with demands associated with family and home life (Greehaus and
Parasurman cited in Tuten & August, 2006, p. 587). Adverse effects from work/
family conflict include poor health, stress, burnout, limited career development and
life dissatisfaction (Tuten & August, 2006; von Doussa, 2007). Working mothers
have been shown to be particularly vulnerable to work/family conflict (von Doussa,
2007, p. 49). In the literature three forms of workfamily conflict are identified:
time-based conflict; strain-based conflict; and behaviour-based conflict (Tuten &
August, 2006, p. 580). Time-based conflict arises when the physical time taken by
work erodes time available for family life. Strain-based conflict arises due to tiredness
and distraction caused by work affecting family life. Behaviour-based conflict arises
when the behaviour expected in one setting conflicts with behaviour in the other.
Key predictors of work/family conflict include hours worked per week, job role
autonomy and the degree of support managers offer to help parents meet multiple
demands (Tuten & August, 2006, p. 578). However, Pocock et al. (2007, p. 3) caution
that we should be mindful of the complex range of actors and forces at work
in constructing work-life outcomes. Whilst in the past some writers conceived
work and family as two separate domains, most now understand them as essentially
inseparable (Pocock et al., 2007, p. 1; Tuten & August, 2006, p. 580).
For women in heterosexual partnerships, parenthood often entrenches gender
inequality and exacerbates the gendered division of labour (Dunne, 1998, p. 4;
Pocock, 2003; Smyth et al., 2005). Gender practices within heterosexual home
have been shown to be very resistant to change (Bittman, England, Folbre, Sayer,
Community, Work & Family
191
& Matheson, 2003). Mens lack of participation in caring and domestic work (or
gendered household cultures and practices) continues to be identified as a major
barrier to womens work/life outcomes (Pocock et al., 2007, p. 1; von Doussa, 2007,
pp. 4849). A recent heterosexual work/family study (Smyth et al., 2005) highlighted
the resentment and angst within participants relationships created by their
perceptions of unequal responsibilities in relation to caring and domestic work.
Many women in this heterosexual study described domestic work as a drudge,
thankless, mundane and repetitive (Smyth et al., 2005, p. 44). The study noted that:
The womens home responsibilities appeared to be constant, regardless of the age of
their children or the extent of their workforce participation. One woman who worked
full-time after her husband went part-time found, to her dismay that nothing had
changed in relation to domestic duties and she still did everything. Whilst most of the
women accepted a traditional division of household labour, this did not mean that they
were happy with this situation. (Smyth et al., 2005, p. 44)
The implicit assumptions of heterosexuality in previous work/family research have
limited the capacity to identify obstacles to egalitarian relationships (Dunne, 1998,
pp. 12). Many lesbian couples conceive and construct themselves as a critique of
traditional heterosexual relations and seek to base power relations within their
relationship on equality. Further, the division of labour between lesbian couples is
negotiated by people who occupy the same position on the gender hierarchy.
Consequently, studies of lesbian-parented families:
. . . present a marvellous opportunity to see what is achievable when gender polarisation
as a structuring principle is absent and this has a broad applicability for women, men
and families regardless of their sexuality. (Dunne, 1998, p. 5)
Thus, research into the work/family arrangements of lesbian parents is likely to offer
important insights into work/family arrangements in Australia both in lesbianparented families specifically and all families generally.
Work/family arrangements in lesbian-parented families
There is an expanding literature on Australian lesbian-parented families (Lindsay
et al., 2006; McNair et al., 2008; McNair, Dempsey, Wise, & Perlesz, 2002;
Mikhailovich, Martin, & Lawton, 2001; Millbank, 2002, 2003; Perlesz & McNair,
2004). A recent welcome addition to the literature has focused on lesbian-parented
families experiences of service systems, such as education and health (Lindsay et al.,
2006; McNair et al., 2008; Perlesz & McNair, 2004; Rawsthorne, 2009; West, 2007).
A larger and longer body of research exists in the UK and the USA, including a
focus on work/family arrangements (Dunne, 1998, 2000; Lewin, 1993; Patterson,
1992, 1995, 1998; Sullivan, 1996; Tasker & Golombok, 1998; Tuten & August, 2006).
The work/family arrangements in lesbian-parented families have been touched upon
in one Australian study (McNair et al., 2002). Accordingly, this article seeks to
contribute to the expanding literature on the experiences of lesbians reconciling work
and family responsibilities, as well as the broader work/family literature.
In Australia, demographic data on lesbian parents have historically been poor
with no question on sexuality in the national census (Millbank, 2003, p. 548). Since
1996 this has improved somewhat with the capturing of same sex data in the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Household & Population Census although
192
M. Rawsthorne and M. Costello
this is limited to co-habiting same sex parents who choose to identify as de
facto (Rawsthorne, 2008, p. 1). These data, however, exclude those couples not
co-habiting, lesbians not currently in a relationship they would describe as de facto
or those who do not wish to be identified in the Census as a same sex co-habiting
couple. Accordingly, the ABS Census data need to be used with caution as it provides
only a limited insight into the demographics of the lesbian community.
The available 2001 ABS Census data suggest that lesbian parents are a minority,
with over four-fifths of lesbian co-habiting couples having no children. Lesbianparented families were of a similar size to the general community, with most having
two or less children. New South Wales, and the Sydney region in particular, has
historically been the centre of the lesbian community in Australia. Data from the
2001 ABS Census confirm this with nearly 40% of lesbian couples identified in
Australia living in New South Wales (Rawsthorne, 2008, p. 3).
The 2001 ABS Census data suggest that lesbians with parenting responsibilities
have high levels of labour-force participation (Rawsthorne, 2008, pp. 56). In 2001,
the participation rate of women with dependent children generally was 64.5%, whilst
for lesbian parents it was 75.8% and for lesbians without children it was 90.8%. Over
half of lesbian parents (56.8%) worked on a full-time basis compared to 40.5% of
women with dependent children according to the 2001 ABS Census. Conversely, over
half (54.5%) of all women with dependent children worked part time compared to
37.9% of lesbian parents. The impact of raising children (or what some refer to as the
parenting penalty) appears to affect lesbian parents less, with 22.3% withdrawing
from the labour force compared to 35.5% of women with dependent children. In
terms of work/family responsibilities, this data would suggest that Australian lesbian
parents are not using part-time employment to the same extent as other women to
reconcile these demands. Within the international literature a number of explanations are put forward to explain these differences.
In contrast to heterosexual women, where gender stereotypes and expectations
may hamper education and career development, a lesbian lifestyle both necessitates
and facilitates financial self-reliance (Dunne, 1998, p. 4). Lesbian women,
particularly those aware of and embracing their sexuality at a young age, never
expect financial dependence on men or the possibility that their work may be seen as
that of a secondary or supplementary income in the same way heterosexual women
might. Dunnes (1998, p. 4) research in the UK indicates that many lesbian women
perceive their relationships as one of co-independence, where their education and
employment are facilitated by support from their partner and the more egalitarian
household division of labour negotiated. She found that lesbian-parented families
show:
. . . a distinct pattern of equality and sharing compared to heterosexual parents, with
corresponding positive well-being for the partners relationship with each other, and the
childs adjustment. (Dunne, 2000, p. 31)
Co-parents (non-biological parents) were more likely than biological mothers to be
in full-time employment, although they were less likely than fathers in heterosexual
families to be in full-time employment (Dunne, 2000, p. 15). Likewise, Tasker and
Golmobok (1991) argue:
. . . co-mothers may be more willing than most fathers to compromise paid work in
order to take on more involvement in parenting. (Tasker & Golombok, 1991, p. 65)
Community, Work & Family
193
A study undertaken in the USA also found that lesbian parents evenly shared
household labour, childcare and family decision-making (Patterson, 1995). Lesbian
parents appear to reconcile work and family responsibilities following an egalitarian
principle of self-conscious mutual understanding and sharing of both rewards
and responsibilities (Sullivan, 1996, p. 757). Despite this, Tuten and August (2006,
p. 590) looking specifically at work/family interaction conclude that lesbian
mothers, as with heterosexual mothers, struggle with work-family conflict. They
go on to argue that in addition to the hours of work, role autonomy, organisational
attitudes and policies, being out at work seems to be a positive coping strategy
(Tuten & August, 2006, p. 590).
It is unclear whether Australian lesbian-parented families are following similar
trends to those evident in international research. Accordingly, this paper now turns
to report the findings of a small-scale Australian study before concluding with a
discussion.
Methodology
Studying the experiences and arrangements of lesbian-parented families sought to
throw new light on the factors shaping parents experiences in contemporary
Australia. Semi-structured interviews explored the life and work decisions made by
lesbians with parenting responsibilities living in New South Wales. The key research
questions of the study were:
What arrangements do lesbian parents make to meet their home/work
responsibilities?
How do lesbian women currently experience their work/home balance?
What factors facilitate or inhibit balancing home/work responsibilities?
Studying the experiences of a relatively small, stigmatised group has many challenges
(McNair et al., 2002). Recruitment strategies with hard-to-reach communities such
as lesbian parents tend to rely more on informal processes to generate purposive
samples rather than a more randomised or representative sample (Bradford et al.,
2001 cited in McNair et al., 2002, p. 40). Accordingly, an advertisement seeking
participation in the study was disseminated through lesbian websites and services.
The results from this small-scale qualitative study cannot be generalised but provide
the beginnings on which further knowledge can be built.
Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 21 women, mostly on an
individual basis, to explore participants understandings and experiences of lesbian
parenting, reconciling work/family arrangements and social policy. The interview
schedule covered: paid work; childcare arrangements; home duties; approaches to
parenting; lesbian identity; formal and informal supports; and social policy.
Qualitative research enables the exploration of social phenomena without defining
or limiting potential responses. Through qualitative interviewing, the diversity and
richness of participants experiences shaped by social processes are unearthed.
Accordingly, this study documents participants shared or common understandings,
experiences, opinions, attitudes and feelings. The interviews ranged in length
from 45 to 90 minutes and were recorded with permission. The interviews were
professionally transcribed and a thematic analysis was undertaken with the support
of qualitative data analysis computer software (NVivo7).
194
M. Rawsthorne and M. Costello
The data were coded as themes emerged from the transcripts using descriptive,
topic and analytical coding (Richards, 2005, pp. 85103). Descriptive attributes
enabled exploration of differences in experiences between participants, for example,
households with both parents working full time and households with one parent
working full time and the other part time. The thematic analysis was tested in two
ways: initially with the research assistant and finally with the participants themselves.
Broad themes were identified jointly with the research assistant and coding was
undertaken independently with a view to maximising the robustness of the analysis.
Regular meetings were held during the analysis phase to clarify and discuss the
emerging conclusions. Additionally, all participants received an interim report of the
study seeking their comments on the trustworthiness of the conclusions drawn from
the interviews. Most responded to the interim report positively, whilst two couples
felt the report had not fully reflected their experiences. These two couples
experiences were somewhat exceptional among the participants and were included
as such in the final report (Rawsthorne, 2008).
In reporting the participants experiences, this article adopts the following
definitions: most is used to refer to more than three-quarters of families; many is
used to refer to at least half of families; some is used to refer to less than half; and a
small number is used to refer to three or less families. The quotes have been selected
to support the specific argument and are not seeking to represent the views and
experiences of other participants. All names used in this article are pseudonyms to
ensure confidentiality of participants.
The participants
Twenty-one lesbians with parenting responsibilities participated in the study. In
total, the experiences of 17 lesbian-parented families reconciling work/family
responsibilities were included. In most households only one parent was interviewed,
whilst in three cases both parents asked to be interviewed. The couple interviews
provided a more complete picture of household dynamics, enabling both partners
experiences to be more fully included. Those women interviewed alone often made
statements such as from my perspective, although Im not sure what my partner
would say. In six families the sole biological parent was interviewed and in the
remainder either both parents or both biological parents and co-parents were
interviewed.
Over half of the families lived outside of Sydney, mostly in the Illawarra and the
Blue Mountains. Over three-quarters of the lesbian parents interviewed were aged
between 36 and 45 years. Two participants were aged between 26 and 35 years, and
two between 46 and 55 years. Four women were raising children alone, ones partner
lived separately and the remainder co-habited. The decision to include sole parents
reflects a desire to understand what decisions lesbian women with sole care
responsibilities make in relation to work and family. Additionally, the interviews
with sole parents included their work/family arrangements prior to separation. In
seven families the youngest child was in pre-school, in four families the youngest
child was a primary aged child and in another four families the youngest child was a
teenager. Seven families had only one child at the time of the interview, five had
two children and four had three or more children. An equal number of children
were conceived within lesbian relationships as heterosexual relationships, with one
Community, Work & Family
195
household having children conceived both within a lesbian relationship and
heterosexual relationships.
The lesbian parents in the study were highly qualified, with most holding a
bachelors degree or higher. Health care dominated the occupations of participants;
however, there was a wide range of other prestigious occupations such as journalism,
public relations, communications, science management and law. Nearly two-thirds of
participants were employed in the public sector with the remainder working in the
private sector, the non-government sector or self-employed.
Findings
Participants experiences in relation to reconciling work and family responsibilities
are presented below framed by the key research questions of the study.
Workforce participation of lesbian parents
At the time of the interview the majority of participants were in the labour force,
with half of the households having both parents working more than 30 hours per
week. Among the participants four were not currently working, two of them were
sole parents and one was receiving a disability pension arising from a work-related
injury. In one coupled household, neither parent was in paid employment. Most
participants worked in prestigious, well-paying occupations with substantial work
histories. It is important to note that privileged workforce positions (or good quality
jobs) are associated with better worklife outcomes (Pocock et al., 2007, p. 13). Paid
work played an important part in the participants lives. Many participants had clear
professional identities and viewed paid work as far more than a source of income.
For most participants there was an assumption of workforce participation, even
when shaped by family responsibilities. This assumption reflected not only the
economic and social reality of lesbian women but also a psychological rejection of
dependency either on another individual or the State:
Were both quite ambitious women . . . I positioned myself when you talk about career
planning in order to get to this point, so I mean thats been strategically developed in
terms of taking on positions and doing particular types of work and putting myself out
there. I do training and I do clinical supervision and I work as a trainer and supervisor,
and then I do private practice work but theyve been strategic things that Ive built up
to be able to go okay, I need my life to look like this, what do I need to do to get there?,
and I think that the profession allows me to do that. (Vicky)
Among the participants the biological parent of the youngest child was less likely to
be working full time compared to the co-parent, particularly during the early years
of a childs life. This work/family arrangement is similar to the arrangements within
the general community. At the end of maternity and other leave entitlements many
families had both parents in the workforce on a full-time basis, which contrasts with
the dominant Australian pattern of household workforce participation of a mix of
part-time/full-time paid work (Pocock et al., 2007, p. 8).
The participants had a range of experiences in relation to accessing leave around
the time of birth. Most, however, were able to take extended leave (12 or more
months) around the birth of the child. On a number of occasions co-parents also
took extended leave (up to 6 months) as well. Much of this leave was paid leave,
196
M. Rawsthorne and M. Costello
drawing on a combination of paid (half time) maternity leave and accumulated
annual leave. About half of the participants (eight biological mothers and six
co-parents) were employed in public sector positions prior to and following birth.
These women had access to good leave (both paid and unpaid), maternity and
recreational leave. Their rights were often spelled out clearly in policies, which in
most cases were supported by organisational culture. Other participants (those
self-employed or contractors) positioned themselves to maximise their control and
flexibility in their work arrangements after the birth:
While I was on maternity leave the manager that I had negotiated coming back with,
changed about four times. [laughter] Every time I rang up, thered be a new one. Well,
last week he said I could come back these days. So, its obviously the structure in the
place and the culture of it, and its quite a small [government] department now. They
have a really good agency agreement. (Susan)
Whilst many participants were able to negotiate their preferred return to work
arrangements (possibly reflecting their workplace power), this was not always the
case. Like their heterosexual sisters, only a minority viewed returning to work
on a flexible basis as a right. Many came to agreements with employers after
considerable negotiation and compromise (on their part), even in the context of
supportive policies. The culture of the organisation was really important in
enabling parents to reconcile work and family responsibilities as the following quote
indicates:
I think those provisions are essential but the culture of the organisation has an impact
on how or whether people feel they can actually take advantage of them because being
entitled to flexi time is one thing, being encouraged to take flexi time holidays, and to
have no repercussions when you apply for [carers] leave or sick leave or anything like
that, is different. (Helen)
Lesbian womens experience of work/home interactions
The interaction between work/home responsibilities can be conceptualised as moving
along a continuum from adverse spillover to coping to mutually enriching. This
continuum of experiences was evident among participants, who were aware of the
dynamic and fluid nature of work/family interactions.
Four families were currently experiencing serious adverse spillovers from work
into family life, creating tensions. Expectations, aspirations and lived cultures
appeared important here. These families were all raising children conceived within
their current lesbian relationship and had a strong commitment to shared coparenting. or Work and family life were interacting in such a way that these women
were finding it difficult to live up to their own expectations and aspirations of
parenthood. These families also exhibited lower levels of time and task autonomy
and flexibility in their paid work, which have well-established affects on worklife
outcomes (Pocock et al., 2007, p. 11):
I mean, I think thats pretty much the pattern of work life generally, and it at times feels,
like, impossible to really do both very well, to have a family and to have work. I guess
I come to accept the imperfections in my life . . .I think its very hard to find a situation
thats perfect cause as long as youre working and have small children, I think theres
always going to be a conflict. (Kerry)
Community, Work & Family
197
One-third of participants (with children across the age spectrum) used coping
strategies to shape their work lives around their family responsibilities. These steps
included changing jobs, reducing hours, not taking promotional opportunities or
delaying career aspirations. These steps were viewed as positive changes in order to
better reconcile work and family responsibilities:
In terms of the way its working in with my family life now, its going very well.
I dropped the parts of my work that had, you know, clear deadlines and all that kind of
stuff. It doesnt really matter when I do it that often. (Pam)
In four households work and family were viewed as mutually enriching, enabling
them to parent and develop their careers. In these households parenting and working
were rewarding. In general, they held senior responsible positions drawing on their
lengthy work histories. This workforce status or power had enabled them to create
work/family interactions that nourished them as both parents and workers:
Im in a position where people are giving me work that I like doing and Im good at and
letting me take on lots of interesting things so they recognise what I can do. I love the
work. (Debbie)
What factors facilitate or inhibit balancing home/work responsibilities?
The interviews highlighted the complex range of actors and forces at work in
constructing worklife outcomes (Pocock et al., 2007, p. 3). Among participants,
work and family lives interacted in complex and dynamic ways, revealing a similar
fluidity to those of heterosexual women (Smyth et al., 2005). Workplace culture,
including the ability to be safely out, affected participants experiences. A number
of participants highlighted the workplace divide between those with children and
those without:
But, look, I think, I think sometimes, it depends, there are some people in the
organisation who are very supportive and very understanding and theyre generally the
people whove been parents themselves. I think sometimes when people see you walking
in at nine, walking out at 3.30, maybe its me projecting, but I feel like theres a, a bit of
attitude that its nice, its very nice for you to do that, oh, how nice to just have a three
day week. (Kerry)
In additional to workplace culture, access to and support from a network of friends
and family was also clearly important in reconciling work/family responsibilities.
The interviews suggest there was extensive use of informal childcare among the
participants, with grandparents and friends taking active roles in caring for children.
Participants, however, repeatedly returned to the valuing of unpaid caring work as
central to their experiences, making a distinction with the experiences of heterosexual women. Accordingly, the remainder of this article will explore the impact of
unpaid labour (or who cleans the sink) in shaping participants experiences of
reconciling work/family responsibilities:
I remember when we first moved in together, when we first got together and I went to
work one day and came home and shed cleaned the sink and stuff and I was like god
someones done it! (Mary)
This study found a strong commitment to sharing the rewards and responsibilities of
parenting among participants, including the functioning of the household. The type
198
M. Rawsthorne and M. Costello
of resentment and angst concerning household tasks reported by Smyth et al. (2005)
was absent from the lives of many of the lesbian women interviewed for this study. As
women, the lesbian parents interviewed expected to be involved in household tasks
and caring roles. It was assumed these responsibilities would be shared and not the
domain of one parent:
Well our approach was shaped by the fact that both of us throughout our lives, expected
to be the person doing it. I think having lived with a man before where a lot of stuff just
automatically came back to me for some strange reason yeah I think its very different.
So yeah, I think thats different, we share things more I think. (Mary)
The arrangements of lesbian parents household and care tasks showed three general
patterns: division of labour shaped by preference; those families shaped along more
traditional divisions of labour; and those families who were flexible and adaptable in
their arrangements. These patterns appeared to be influenced by a range of other
factors, particularly labour-force status, having pre-school children, commuting and
biological relations. These patterns also exhibited differing levels of anxiety or
conflict concerning household and care tasks, with those enacting more traditional
divisions of labour experiencing the greatest level of conflict.
In many of the households the division of unpaid work was actively negotiated.
This was in marked contrast to Smyth et al.s (2005) findings concerning the
entrenched nature of gendered household practices in heterosexual households.
The lack of assumptions built into unpaid work arrangements assisted in the
reconciliation of work and families responsibilities.
In six families, individual preference appeared to shape decisions about household tasks. When couples preferences complemented each other this enabled an easy
settlement in the household. In two households, preferences did not complement and
there was a degree of resentment about the partners cleanliness. Whilst there was
considerable evidence of preferences in household duties, these did not sort easily
into traditionally feminine or masculine roles and behaviours (Nelson, 1996, p. 110).
The lack of men in lesbian households was often a source of humour among
participants in relation to the tasks traditionally viewed as masculine (such as
working with power tools). In households where preferences complemented each
other, household tasks just got done. Some participants in couple interviews were
surprised to find a gap between their understanding and the reality of household task
allocations. This gap did not create angst between the couples but pointed to the low
priority household tasks had in their families. One participant commented, I see a
broom, I sweep, no big deal:
We just do what we like. I like to cook so Ive just always done the cooking. In terms
of the housework there are things that we do specifically, like it sounds stupid, I clean
the bathroom cause I like to clean the bathroom, I hate doing the floors, so Trudy
does the floors. She makes the beds, I cant be bothered making the bed. (Vicky)
A small number of households (three) enacted more traditional divisions of labour.
All had pre-school children, one parent working full time and the other part time.
The parent working part time was also the birth mother. These three households
tended to mirror the dominant pattern employed by Australian families to reconcile
work and family responsibilities; one partner working full time, with minimal
household responsibilities, and the other working part time, who carried a greater
share of caring and household tasks:
Community, Work & Family
199
We are interesting in comparison with most other couples that we know in that we
are much more divided. Nellie earns quite a lot more money than I do and I do a lot
more of the house stuff. I do virtually all the cooking. And sometimes elements of that
are annoying. The drudgery side I think I do all the washing virtually too and thats
annoying but that is also kind of a by-product of being the person whos home more.
(Carrie)
In these households their experiences were much more similar to the heterosexual
women (Smyth et al., 2005, p. 44). The partner framed as the home maker expressed
concern about the other partner missing out. An undercurrent of guilt was evident
within the relationship for not doing their share or contributing enough, for not
being either a good mother or a good worker. Within these lesbian households there
also appears to be the added dimensions of dependency and biology. For the women
who found themselves in more traditional heterosexual patterns, financial and
psychological dependency was a source of distress. One woman felt so strongly about
this that she applied for social security benefits to provide her with independent
income.
In a small number of households, space was opened up by the absence of
gendered assumptions to be flexible, adaptable and creative in their arrangements.
These households were playful with the absence of gendered scripts in their
households, changing roles and disrupting social expectations. Comparing their
experiences with heterosexual women, many participants highlighted how they
managed caring and domestic work as a major difference. Some also commented
that unlike heterosexual relationships unpaid work was not that important:
And I think a lot of people, I mean, observation here, but I think certain persons feel
they have to push the equality line, you know. Were kind of lucky there are no assumed
roles, so there isnt this. And I mean like some friends sort of making absolutely certain
that their male partners do equal work, which is very, very stressful for all concerned . . .
To me equal is not the same, equal is not doing the same, so long as were both
participating actively, if were putting the same effort in, to me it doesnt matter what
were doing. So it just kind of comes down to who likes what or whos got time as well.
So when Im home well I do more and when shes home well she does more. Were
flexible. (Susan)
Whilst Sullivan (1996, p. 757) suggests that lesbian parents make self-conscious
decisions in relation to household arrangements, participants in this study were both
critical of the concept of equality and mindful of the disruption caused by the birth
of a child. The sheer scale of work created by children surprised some lesbian parents
and led to a re-evaluation of their household arrangements. Whilst international
studies have highlighted the importance of lesbian commitment to equality, many of
the lesbian parents in this study appeared to have a more pragmatic interpretation of
equality. This pragmatic interpretation was accompanied by a willingness to
contribute to the efficient functioning of the household and a valuing of unpaid
labour as important work:
You just do things that need doing more readily and theres no talking about it, so if you
are working from home you would get up and put a load of washing on or you would
unstack the dishwasher without having anyone telling you to do that. You just notice
stuff and see I suppose efficiencies in your day by doing a couple of things at once so
that you dont have to, or your partner doesnt have to do that later. So I will often
think, I know that Lee takes the bulk of the housework but if I know shes had a big day
and shes left for work real early, I make an effort to have the dinner on the table and the
200
M. Rawsthorne and M. Costello
house in some order because I know how wonderful it is to come in and to have
someone care and look after you and that all that stuff is done. (Petra)
The interviews suggest the heat was taken out of performing household tasks
through acknowledging these tasks as important work, including child rearing.
Repeatedly many participants highlighted that the drudgery of household tasks was
reduced or diminished through recognition of their value. In this way many
participants were enacting arrangements that shared both the rewards and the
responsibilities of work and family life:
I think neither of us have an automatic assumption that someone else will do housework
for us. So that probably means were a lot more appreciative of each others efforts.
I think theres an acknowledgement that child rearing is work, theres a lot of hard work
involved in that so if I get home and I dont get a chance to do the washing up its not
because Im being lazy, its because shes been challenging and I think because Sara is a
woman and has raised two children she understands that as well. (Debbie)
Discussion
This paper explored work/family arrangements under circumstances in which the
traditional gender division of labour is (at least potentially) removed in lesbianparented households. As Dunne (1998, p. 5) argues, it provides a marvellous
opportunity to see what is achievable when gender polarisation as a structuring
principle is absent. A significant body of literature suggests gender polarisation
continues to shape the lived experiences and practices of many heterosexual
households. With the best of goodwill and individual efforts, income disparities
between men and women led many families to feel they have no choice in the way
they structure their work/family arrangements. Caring and household tasks also
continue to be shaped by gender polarisation and assumed roles. The discontent
expressed by women about carrying a double burden of work and home has, to a
great extent, failed to alter gendered household practices. It was an awareness of the
apparent impasse that acted as a catalyst for asking: how can this be different? What
do the experiences of lesbian parents tell us about gender in shaping work and family
interaction?
The small scale of this study and the particularly context (New South Wales,
Australia) means the findings should not be generalised. Like other qualitative
studies, however, it unearths what might be common experiences. Further research,
particularly with a larger and more diverse (in terms of socio-economic status,
geography and culture) sample would assist in testing whether these experiences are
in fact common. As mentioned previously, most of the lesbian women in this study
were highly qualified and worked in prestigious occupations. Whilst this may bias the
studys findings, the small amount of Census data emerging on same sex females
(Rawsthorne, 2008, p. 6) suggest that lesbians are, in general, more qualified and
work accordingly in more prestigious occupations. It is noteworthy that many other
qualitative studies of lesbians have a similar sample profile. With these limitations in
mind the study provides some interesting insights into the experiences of lesbian
parents reconciling work and family responsibilities.
First and foremost, the study suggests that the impact of gender practices on
households reconciling work and family responsibilities are complex. Gender
polarisation may be absent in lesbian relations but gendered practices clearly are
Community, Work & Family
201
not. Lesbian women, as Oerton (1998, p. 73) argues, are constrained and empowered
as women (emphasis in the original). The lesbian participants in this study assume
responsibilities towards household duties and care as women. A key difference,
however, is that these duties are acknowledged as important work. Unlike some
heterosexual households in which partners enact gendered scripts or frames, this
study suggests some lesbian households de-stabilise these scripts or frames. This destabilisation opens up space or possibilities; individual lesbian households produce
specific forms of caring and household patterns. Not all lesbian households will
produce and enact the same pattern, but they have the opportunity to produce and
enact patterns that make sense to them. Accordingly, among the lesbian households
in this study there was a range of patterns evident, including what was referred to as a
more traditional heterosexual pattern of breadwinner/home maker. For others
playing with these opportunities, creating new scripts, brought a sense of lightness
and fun to the arena. The experiences of these lesbian parents suggest that playing
with scripts may provide a useful personal strategy to reduce the level of emotional
angst about who cleans the sink.
It is informative that the small number of households in this study that enacted
more traditional heterosexual patterns experienced the greatest conflict over household duties and work/family responsibilities. These three households tended to
mirror the dominant pattern employed by Australian families to reconcile work
and family responsibilities; one partner working full time, with minimal household
responsibilities, and the other working part time, who carried a greater share of
caring and household tasks. The similarity between these households and the
dominant experiences reported by Smyth et al. (2005) was quite marked. Biology
also shaped the patterns adopted by these households, with the birth mother taking
on the home-maker role. The impact of biology in lesbian-parented families is an
interesting area for further research.
For the majority of lesbian households in this study the absence of a script or
frame to pattern the division of labour saw the creation of specific, negotiated,
patterns. It is perhaps the negotiated nature of the division of labour, the conscious
discussion and decision-making that marks these lesbian households. Smyth et al.
(2005) highlighted the embedded nature of many gendered practices, with a
discussion of the division of labour not even possible in many households. Those
lesbian women who had co-habited with men in the past positively compared their
lesbian experience in terms of household duties and caring. A number of the lesbian
households were playfully aware of gendered practices, exemplified through the
ownership and use of power tools. Others lamented the lack of a man in the
household to do work they found physically challenging or tedious (such as mowing
the lawn or putting out the garbage). They were, however, quickly able to identify
what they viewed as the downsides of enacting traditional roles (oh god that would
mean Id have to do all the washing).
The de-stabilising of prescriptive scripts or frames enabled some households to
negotiate or create a pattern that responded to their personalities, households
and time constraints. This negotiation built in a greater sense of choice, control and
fluidity; there was considerable awareness of the temporal nature of current patterns
or arrangements. When something changed in the household (such as a new job or
an increase in hours), the pattern of caring and household tasks would be renegotiated and strategies agreed to minimise conflict. This only partly explains the
202
M. Rawsthorne and M. Costello
lack of heat in terms of household duties and caring in some lesbian households.
The valuing of caring and household tasks as important work also appears of great
consequence. Gender here seems likely to be influential, with women (who have
traditionally carried out this work) being more able and willing to recognise its value.
In relation to labour-force participation, motherhood appeared less influential
than sexuality. The vast majority of these lesbian women had strong workforce
histories and higher education qualifications. This concurs with previous studies that
found a lesbian lifestyle both necessitates and facilitates financial self-reliance
(Dunne, 1998, p. 4). Whilst there are social and economic imperatives to labour-force
participation there was also a strong psychological rejection of dependency (either
on a partner or the State) underpinning the high levels of labour-force participation.
Further, work and careers involved active choice rather than compulsion due to
having no other alternatives. Dunnes notion of co-independence was evident within
most households, where decisions about work and family life were considerate of the
aspirations of all members.
What are the implications for all families from this research? It concurs with
Pocock et al.s (2007, p. 9) findings that part-time work may not shield well women
from negative worklife spillover. The three households that had a full-time/parttime household labour-force arrangement experienced the greatest conflict between
work and family responsibilities. Clearly this issue requires further research with a
larger and more diverse sample but the differences in household experiences suggest
it is worthy of further study. It also suggests that negotiation in terms of caring and
domestic tasks may be a more effective strategy than an aspiration towards equality
or 50/50, as implied through work/family time-use research. Overt and ongoing
negotiation appears important to taking the heat out of this arena of household life,
particularly when coupled with a valuing of this work as important. This study
suggests the patterning of work and family life in lesbian-parented families is a rich
terrain for exploring new possibilities.
Notes on contributors
Dr Margot Rawsthorne teaches community development in the Social Work & Policy Studies
program at the University of Sydney. Margot is a feminist researcher particularly interested in
inequality shaped by gender, location and sexuality.
Mayet Costello is a Ph.D. student, Social Work & Policy Studies program at the University of
Sydney. Mayets research interests focus on women and policy processes.
References
Bittman, M., England, P., Folbre, N., Sayer, L., & Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender
trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. The American Journal of Sociology,
109(1), 186214.
Campbell, I., & Charlesworth, S. (2004). Key work and family trends in Australia (Background
Report). Melbourne: Centre for Applied Social Research, RMIT University.
Craig, L. (2004). Time to care: A comparison of how couple and sole parent households allocate
time to work and children (SPRC Discussion Paper No. 133, Social Policy Research Paper).
Sydney: University of New South Wales.
Dunne, G.A. (1998). Introduction: Add sexuality and stir: Towards a broader understanding
of the gender and dynamics of work and family life. In G.A. Dunne (Ed.), Living difference:
Lesbian perspectives on work and family life (pp. 18). New York: The Haworth Press.
Community, Work & Family
203
Dunne, G.A. (2000). Opting into motherhood: Lesbians blurring the boundaries and
transforming the meaning of parenthood and kinship. Gender and Society, 14(1), 1135.
Lewin, E. (1993). Lesbian mothers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lindsay, J., Perlesz, A., Brown, R., McNair, R., de Vaus, D., & Pitts, M. (2006). Stigma or
respect: Lesbian families negotiating school settings. Sociology, 40, 10591077.
McNair, R., Brown, R., Perlesz, A., Lindsay, J., de Vaus, D., & Pitts, M. (2008). Lesbian
parents negotiating the health care system in Australia. Health Care for Women
International, 29, 91114.
McNair, R., Dempsey, D., Wise, S., & Perlesz, A. (2002). Lesbian parenting: Issues, strengths
and challenges. Family Matters, 63, 4049.
Mikhailovich, K., Martin, S., & Lawton, S. (2001). Lesbian and gay parents: Their experiences
of childrens health care in Australia. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies,
6(3), 181191.
Millbank, J. (2002). Meet the parents: A review of the research on lesbian and gay families.
Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://www.glrl.org.au/pdf/major_reports/meet_the_
parents.pdf
Millbank, J. (2003). From here to maternity: A review of the research on lesbian and gay
families. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 541600.
Nelson, F. (1996). Lesbian motherhood: An exploration of Canadian lesbian families. Toronto,
ON: University of Toronto Press.
Oerton, S. (1998). Reclaiming the housewife? Lesbians and household work. In G.A. Dunne
(Ed.), Living difference: Lesbian perspectives on work and family life (pp. 6983). New York:
The Howarth Press.
Patterson, C. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63(5), 1025
1042.
Patterson, C. (1995). Families of the lesbian baby boom: Parents division of labor and child
adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 115123.
Patterson, C. (1998). Family lives of children born to lesbian mothers. In C. Patterson &
A. DAugelli (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities in families (pp. 154176). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Perlesz, A., & McNair, R. (2004). Lesbian parenting: insiders voices. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25(3), 129140.
Pocock, B. (2003). The work-life collision: What work is doing to Australians and what to do
about it. Annandale: Federation Press.
Pocock, B., Skinner, N., & Williams, P. (2007, July 1113). Governing work-life intersections in
Australia over the life course: Policy and prospects. Paper presented at Australian Social
Policy Conference, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Rawsthorne, M. (2008). Lesbian parents reconciling work and family responsibilities (Summary
Report). Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://www.edsw.usyd.edu.au/research/networks/
sprn/news.shtml
Rawsthorne, M. (2009). Just like other parents? Supporting lesbian parented families.
Australian Journal of Social Work, 62(1), 4560.
Richards, S. (2005). Handling qualitative data. A practical guide. London: Sage.
Smyth, C., Rawsthorne, M., & Siminski, P. (2005). Womens lifework: Labour market transition
experiences of women. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South
Wales.
Sullivan, U. (1996) Rozzie and Harriet? Gender and family patterns of lesbian coparents,
Gender & Society, 10(6), 747767.
Summers, A. (2003). The end of equality: Work, babies and womens choices in 21st century
Australia. Milsons Point: Random House Australia.
Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1991). Children raised by lesbian mothers: The empirical
evidence. Family Law, 21, 184187.
Tasker, F.L., & Golombok, S. (1998). The role of co-mothers in planned lesbian-led
families. In G.A. Dunne (Ed.), Living difference: Lesbian perspectives on work and family
life (pp. 4968). New York: The Haworth Press.
Toohey, M. (2005, February 9). The effectiveness of child care benet at improving returns to
work for women. Paper presented at the 9th Australian Institute of Family Studies
204
M. Rawsthorne and M. Costello
Conference, National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, University of Canberra,
Melbourne.
Tuten, T., & August, R. (2006). Work-family conict: A study of lesbian mothers. Women in
Management Review, 21(7), 578597.
von Doussa, J. (2007). Its about time: Key ndings from the women, men, work and family
project. Family Matters, 76, 4854.
West, M.D. (2007). Mrs, Mr Heterosexuality by default: Using policy to afrm diversity.
Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://www.glhv.org.au/node/134