See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315046640

Men at Work Keep Off: Male Roles and Household

Chores in Nigeria

Article · December 2016

CITATIONS READS
2 897

3 authors, including:

Olayinka Akanle Jimi Adesina

University of Ibadan University of South Africa
107 PUBLICATIONS   268 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   174 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cosmopolitanism, Social Capital and Urban Networking in Africa View project

Transformative Social Policy Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olayinka Akanle on 27 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3), 2016, 7833-7854
Copyright © 2016 Ife Centre for Psychological Studies/Services, Nigeria

Men at Work Keep-Off: Male Roles and household Chores in Nigeria

Olayinka Akanle (PhD) Jimi O. Adesina (PhD)

Department of Sociology, The College of Graduate Studies,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria & University of South Africa
SARChl Chair in Social Policy, Ogbimi A.O
College of Graduate Studies, Department of Sociology,
University of South Africa (UNISA), Faculty of the Social Sciences,
South Africa University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Abstract
Many extant studies and popular narratives have accounted for female
mainstreaming in domestic roles. This has indeed become common rhetoric
to the extent that literature documents the reality in most traditional African
households and a few western ones. What is lacking however is the need to
capture emerging issues in the same heavily traditional contexts. Hence,
more works are needed in the area of objective women/men roles in the
domestic realm. What then is the emerging scenario and even the old yet
unaccounted for in gender relations in the traditional contexts of household
chores? This article explores mainly Nigerian men’s views of the division of
household labour. Using qualitative data from a sample of married Nigerian
men, we examine men’s participation in housework, their attitudes towards
the spousal roles, their attitudes toward men who share housework and
sustainability of change. The role of background factors such as socio-
economic status and level of education was also considered. This article is
on an important topic and the findings could expose and teach processes of
change in social norms particularly in the contexts of family.
Key Words: Gender, Masculinity, Domestic Roles, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Introduction
Construction and involvement in household chores in the context of family
and spousal relations are the emerging contours of gender differences in
contemporary societies (Akanle, 2014, Evertsson, 2014, Adesina, 2013,
Qian and Sayer, 2012). This is particularly so as the family and the contexts
of households are the microcosm of the larger society. This is more so in
African settings where families and kinship networks are the buffer zones
for managing social pressures (Akanle, 2014). It is thus very important to
continuously interrogate elements of domestic roles involvement and it has
been well established that gender differences exist in domestic division of
labour (Heisig, 2011, Geist, 2005, Hook, 2010). The debate has been
7833
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

around do men involve in household chores, why the involvement/non-

involvementment household chores and what are the roles of tradition and
traditionalism (Aassve, Fuochi and Mencarini, 2014, Akanle and Ejiade,
2012, Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard, 2010). Often, concerns about gender
and division of labour in domestic chores are about equality, fairness and
welfare (Berhardt and Turunen, 2014, Evertsson, 2014, Adesina, 2013,
Geist and Cohen, 2011, hook, 2010) and there has also been the place of
socio-economic status in these narratives (Qian and Sayer, 2012, Heisig,
2011).

While there appears to be a consensus that the rate of men’s involvement in

domestic chores has increased (Stewart, 2013, Schober, 2013, Gaunt, 2013,
Anderson, 1999), more researches are needed across contexts to understand
the ramifications, contextualities and dynamics of this increase especially in
developing systems of Africa. Even while there has been a little shift in
male roles in domestic chores, extant studies have documented that women
continue to do the lion’s share of housework regardless of the fact that more
women increasingly enter paid employment (Lachance-Grzela and
Bouchard, 2010 for example). In many traditional contexts, women actually
do all the house works thereby calling for more scholarly attention to this
very important issue. Most existing literature on processes, implications and
consequences of gender inequality in domestic chores are on industrialised
countries (Aassve, Fuochi and Mencarini, 2014, Berhardt and Turunen,
2014, Evertsson, 2014, Stewart, 2013, Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard,
2010). Literature on male involvement in domestic chores are particularly
few on Africa and lacking on Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa
and among the most traditional at community levels. Has there been change
in the domestic chores role play in Africa/Nigeria? Do men now involve in
domestic chores? What is driving the change and/or what is sustaining the
rigidity? These questions need to be more interrogated and empirically
answered in African contexts.

Gender and domestic chores’ role play are strongly influenced by history and
socio-cultural systems. While more egalitarian systems, though wide-
ranging, are now more in place in household chores as driven by open
market, industrialisation, social welfare, advocacy and developed human
rights domains in developed countries, inclusive egalitarian systems in
domestic chores among spouses are still lacking largely in Africa and Nigeria
(Akanle, 2014, Adesina, 2013, Akanle and Olutayo, 2012, Akanle, 2012a,
Olutayo and Akanle, 2011, Akanle, 2011). Fairness and equality are still
7834
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

weakly understood in domestic chores and reiteration of traditional gender

ideology subsists as meta-narratives even though many of such narratives are
often ahistorical (please see Adesina, 2013, Olawoye, Omololu, Aderinto,
Adeyefa, Adeyemo, and Osotimehin, 2010, Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne
and Fisher, 2008, Beal, 1994, Gregor, 1985, Karanga, 1983). Unlike huge
studies that now exist on domestic chores, traditionalism and gender ideology
in developed societies, researches and community level data are relative
scarce and limited on male roles in domestic chores in contemporary Africa
communities and these are needed for sustainable understanding of the
problematic.

Common narratives focus on women roles in the context of family and

weakly account for emerging roles of men in the same context. Even though
gender constructions and relations affect decision making in the home, they
may also be evolving. To understand the elements of nuanced gender
manifestations in domestic role play/chores in Africa and Nigeria therefore, a
clear continuous research agenda is needed that distinguishes objective
macro cultural configurations from real micro socio-cultural and economic
experiences of men and women in households and it is against this
background that this article subsists. In Africa, men are traditionally seen as
very domineering and never to be involved in family support giving beyond
financial provision due to African patriarchy that favours them (Akanle and
Ejiade, 2012, Akanle, 2011). Chores are thus female remit. For Akanle and
Ejiade (2012) within the construct of patriarchy belied by tradition, men are
domestic/family war lords and gladiators who never participate in family life
other than to be served by their wives and children thereby propelling
common population indicators of women as housekeepers/home minders and
tenders.

This article demonstrates dynamics of men’s involvement in domestic chores

in Nigeria as against common narratives and popular meta-narratives. It
engages a notable and under researched topic in household gender
roles/responsibilities in traditional societal contexts. There is an attempt to
both locate this problematic within existing theory as well as develop new
theoretical concepts out of the research.

Social Relations of Household Roles

Girls, boys, men and women are expected to play unique roles given by the
society. Africa is heavily patriarchal and most of the respected roles are
bequeathed on men. In the context of home, domestic chores are
7835
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

mainstreamed and most are played by women while men serve as

breadwinners. These roles segmentation starts very early beginning from
the moment a child is born with the simple social question “is it a boy or a
girl? (World Health Organization, 2001, Gleitman, Fridlund and Reisberg,
2000, Bem (1993), with implications for social action. According to Aina
(1998), Nigerian society is a patriarchal society with a system of social
stratification and differentiation on the basis of sex which provides material
advantages to males while simultaneously placing severe constrains on the
roles and activities of females (see also Olawoye, Omololu, Aderinto,
Adeyefa, Adeyemo, and Osotimehin, 2010, Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne
and Fisher, 2008, Beal, 1994, Gregor, 1985).

Researches like that of Olawoye, Omololu, Aderinto, Adeyefa, Adeyemo,

and Osotimehin, (2010) have documented the point that the social
differences existing between male and female in societies account for the
roles played by both gender including in the context of the family as
observable in feminised and segmented child rearing and household chores.
In Nigeria, household chores are generally seen as responsibilities of
women and taboo for men. According to Kamo (2000), men are known to
generally overestimate their domestic involvements as they actually do not
really involved in household chores. To demonstrate the domestic chores
burden on women, Khawaja and Habib (2007), through the case of Beirut,
documented that women who primarily engage in more traditional roles but
whose husbands also participate in domestic duties are the happiest.

Generally, husbands, fathers and males are expected to financially provide

for their families as breadwinners and critical ultimate decision makers in
society in the household with very little gender flexibility in performing
these roles. Forces of globalisation, westernisation and modernisation are
only gradually confronting this gender rigidity but the nature of change is
still very minimal and largely undocumented in the context of traditional
families more so in African societies where different roles are traditionally
assigned to men and women (Olutayo and Akanle, 2007, Olawoye, 2001,
Jaeger and Hoffman, 1997, Davies and Banks, 1997, Karanga, 1983).
Karanga (1983), after a survey in Lagos, Nigeria, found that, in most cases,
the husband alone decided the most important issues affecting the family
including household chores and for most respondents, this arrangement was
acceptable, not only to the man, but also to the woman. Even in
industrialized societies, it has been documented that household division of
labour remains skewed and gender dependent and women are still left with
7836
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

the major responsibility for housework and child care (Orloff, 2002).
According to Gershuny and Sullivan, (2003) and Coltrane, (2000) although
the amount of time women now spend to do housework may have declined
in recent times, this reduction has been marginal and driven not by positive
change in gender norms by economic forces. Gender norms that confine
women to traditional domestic roles still hold sway as men seen performing
domestic chores are derogatorily referred to as women wrapper and/or she
man (see also Olawoye et al, 2010, Klumb, Hoppmann, and Staats, 2006).

According to Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children

(2005), men are socialized into their gender roles and pressured to follow
rules about how a man should think, feel and act and, for Gilligan (1998),
men attach greater priority to formal rights and competition while women
value caring relationships and cooperative interaction and this so also
within the family systems (Gaspar and Klinke, 2009, Philaretou, 2001,
Coltrane, 2000, Connell, 1995, Church and Constantine, 1993, Pittman,
1993, Rodgers and White, 1993). Even though gender segmentations
domestic chores may be narrowing, women/wives still do most of the home
and unpaid family work in both traditional and western societies (see
Schober (2013 for Britain’s case and Ministry of Social Security and
Labour, Lithuania (2007) for the Lithuania case for example).

Regarding the determinants of husbands’ participation in domestic labour,

the demand/response capability hypothesis states that the more domestic task
demands on a husband and the greater his capacity to fulfil those demands,
especially in terms of available time, the greater his participation in
household activities (Coverman, 1985). According to Presser (1994), as the
number of children increases, husbands’ share of housework decreases even
when they do more hours because wives’ hours increase even more. For
Gupta, (1999); South and Spitze, (1994) and Rexroat and Sehan, (1987),
transitions into cohabitation or marriage and parenthood increase the
women’s housework hours, while declining the amount of time that men
spend on housework.

According to studies, men who engage in household works are selective of

some specific household chores in the family and leave some to women and
for the few men engage in, they seek other females’ assistance (South and
Spitze, 1994). Factors that commonly determine men’s involvement in house
chores are; education, occupational status (whether employed or
unemployed), earnings (income), occupational prestige, and age as they
7837
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

determine outcomes of housework negotiations among spouses and generally

in the family (See Gaunt, 2013, Stewart, 2013, Schober, 2013, Akanle and
Olutayo, 2012a Akanle, 2012b, Akanle and Olutayo, 2012b, Weiten and
Lloyd, 2003, Gupta, 1999, DeMaris and Longmore 1996, Presser, 1994,
South and Spitze, 1994, Brines, 1993 and Rexroat and Sehan, 1987, Blood
and Wolfe, 1960).

The Research Method

This article was based on a research conducted in Nigeria, West Africa. The
primary setting of data collection was Ibadan, South-western Nigeria. Ibadan
is the largest city in Sub-Saharan Africa. The main inhabitants of the city are
the Yoruba people and the city is traditional though modernising (Olutayo
and Akanle, 2007). Ibadan is relatively culturally homogenous though with
some emerging elements of cosmopolitanism (Akanle, 2011). There are five
local government areas in Ibadan metropolis. These are; Ibadan North,
Ibadan North East, Ibadan North West, Ibadan South East, Ibadan South
West. Five areas were purposively selected for data collection in the city
based on their relevant characteristics. The areas are, Agbowo, Oja Oba,
Beere, Bodija and Akobo. Data was collected through qualitative methods
with the use of in-depth Interviews (IDIs) and participant observation. These
data collection methods were adopted due to the nature of the research
problem- gender and household chores in the social relations in the context
of home. These methods provided us with the earthworm perspectives
needed to unravel the deepseated socio-cultural nuances driving the
problematic (see Gaunt, 2013, Akanle, 2011).

This is a household based research making population of study largely

currently cohabiting couples in their households. Currently cohabiting
households were selected due to the focus and objective of the study but
there is concentration on the men since they are the primary target of the
research. This article is therefore, an exploration of Nigerian men’s
worldviews of the issue of male roles in household chores. We drew on the
broader sense of how households are structured and the use of domestic
workers in these households so as to have more valid views of the issues.
Households included in this study were male headed. The households were
without recruited domestic house helps and did not have adult kin/non-kin
residents. It is actually becoming a cautious situation in Ibadan to recruit
foreign and local house helps. This is because, first, of the enactment of the
Child Rights Acts of Nigeria (2003) which prohibits using children (people

7838
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

under 18 years of age) as house helps and the issue of aggressive global drive
against child trafficking.

We gathered that Nigerian Immigration Service Officials frequent

households and popular markets like Bodija (See Akanle and Chukwu, 2013)
to arrest foreign domestic helps and their employers who they either heavily
extort and/or prosecute. Also, there is consciousness against recruiting
househelps because of frequent adoption/kidnapping of employers’ children
by househelps who later demand huge ransom. Hence, househelps are
becoming commonly perceived as possessing evil powers and witchcraft
which they use to afflict employers’ families. These factors are largely
dissuading households from employing househelps. Moreover, many kin and
even non-kin no longer give their children as foster children to others
especially as basic education (primary and junior secondary school) is now
free and compulsory in the country according to the Universal Basic
Education (UBE) Policy in the country.

20 households with cohabiting couples were selected for the in-depth

interviews while participant observation was undertaken for at least six
months across the households in 2013. Interview guides were designed and
validated for unstructured interview session while observation guides and
notes were also used for systematic observation. During data collection, the
city was clustered into five areas- Beere, Oje, Bodija, Akobo and Agbowo.
Beere, Oje and Agbowo represented lower class areas while Bodija and
Akobo represented high(er) socioeconomic category. Allocating three
clusters to the lower class was to mirror the socio-economic reality of the
context. There were repeated visits to households to observe and
confirm/validate data. We gathered data on and observed spousal
involvements in household chores, in-laws visits, nature of spousal relations
relative to chores, age of siblings and communication. This methodological
background is important because a lot of households in West Africa usually
include extended family members and/or in some cases non-kin whose
primary responsibility in the household is to do household chores. This is
why we paid close attention to the households’ context to capture the
complex space in Africa as different from the West’s. Data were analysed
through content analysis and presented as excerpts and ethnographic
summaries.

7839
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

Data and Findings

In this section we present the findings based on data collected during our
fieldwork. We observed and tested the contours of males’ domestic chores in
the context of family. The places of culture and tradition and general
worldview in the context of study were captured.

Nature of Household Chores and reasons for male involvement

Most of the interviewees maintained that their culture and tradition generally
do not support men engaging in domestic roles like cooking, fetching water,
doing the dishes and doing the laundry yet it is within this culture that people
are socialised across institutions and ages. A gap was however found among
cultural dictates, actual attitude and practice of subjects. For instance, within
the counter finding, regardless of cultural dictates, majority of the
interviewees submitted that men that engage in chores are the best and that
men should do all/any house chores including doing the dishes, doing the
laundry and fetching water. This somewhat demonstrated a waning of
cultural dictates which may not be unconnected with the influence of
modernisation and urbanisation (Olutayo and Akanle, 2007, Weiten and
Lloyd, 2003, Adomako Ampofo, 2003).

This somewhat signals a shift in the efficacy of culture and tradition in

shaping respondents orientation and actual engagement in household chores.
This is also consistent with earlier findings on cultural elements, like kinship
(Akanle and Olutayo, 2012a) that cultural elements and traditions are not
immutable and bound to shift as they continuously come in contact with
more recent and more inclusively benevolent values. While the shift in
cultural patterns may not be entirely new, the belief by many of our subjects
that men should engage in all house chores in Nigeria, and Ibadan
traditionalities, is rather new as men who engage in household chores used to
be seen as bewitched by their spouses (oti je efo- he has eaten vegetable-
vegetable been the popular symbol of bewitchment in the context of study).
Many extant narratives have accounted for continuous efficacy culture and
tradition and poor involvement of men in household chores (Kamo, 2000 for
instance). However, in this article, we found a moderation in
cultural/traditional dictates, worldviews and men’s involvement in household
chores. We found this finding particularly sustainable because during our
observations, we found men working (doing household chores) alongside
their spouses and their involvement generally do not have rigid boundaries.
There were even cases of domestic chores male involvement confessions by
women/wives.
7840
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

Another issue we found was that some men have favourite household chores.
That is, among other chores they do, some men have household chores they
find particularly interesting. For example, a woman enthusiastically
maintained her husband love sweeping even more than she does. There was
also the case of another man who enjoys doing the dishes and spreading
cloths on the line after the wife may have washed the cloths. It is therefore
possible to maintain that informal division of labour is observable in many of
the households as the husbands complement their wives especially in the
areas of wives’ domestic works disinterest. There was also the place of
affection, love, understanding, romance and the age of children. These
factors play moderating roles in nature and degree of male roles in domestic
chores. Where there is substantial affection, love, understanding, romance
and very young children, men tend to be more involved in domestic chores.
However, where affection, love, understanding and romance are at the lowest
ebb, male roles and involvement tend to be lower and often negative. Hence,
where there are matured children in the homes, men involvement tends to be
lower except when the children are on school campus or are seldom at home.
A lot of the men tend to engage in household chores as expressive
supportive, affective, romantic and understanding behaviours and perceive
their involvement as needed change and a challenge to cultural orthodoxy.

These findings are not consistent with those of that have designated domestic
unpaid chores as exclusive remit/work of women in Africa (Olawoye,
Omololu, Aderinto, Adeyefa, Adeyemo, and Osotimehin, 2010 for instance).
We captured the blend of worldviews continuum as presented in the excerpts
below which captured the modal opinions/views. During IDI, a man in
Akobo who captured common views, for instance, maintained:
I usually help my wife do some
household chores but sometimes, she
thinks it is my responsibility so I
stopped.
According to another man in Beere who believed his main responsibility as a
man is to be a breadwinner:
It is not good for me to do any
household chores at all since I am
feeding my wife so I don’t do any
household chore.
A man in Bodija, on the contrary said:

7841
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

I and my wife don’t see

household chores as a big
deal…so, I still help my
wife.

The ethnographic summaries above show that most men see household
chores as an important task and very demanding. Many men in the Beere
area (low class area) are of the view that women are supposed to be
responsible for household chores, so they refused to engage. On the contrary,
men from Bodija and Akobo areas (high class area) believe that household
chores are not big deal but should not be taken as an outrightly male’s
responsibility even when the engage as help and for benevolence. It is thus
still possible to see the critical pendulum of tradition and culture. We
directly investigated types of household chores men engage in and why they
chose to engage in such chores. Men who engage in household chores
mentioned different types of chores and why the involvement. The most
common chores men engage in are; bathing children, doing the dishes and
cooking. Unlike in previous studies in western contexts, we did not find
many men mentioning tending the garden. This is because most households
in the communities do not have gardens, unlike in western developed
societies, demonstrating the general environmental situations in the country.
Major reasons the men are at work domestically are to demonstrate love to
their wives and to reduce the domestic burdens of their spouses.
A man from Akobo for instance responded thus:
Well, I help my wife to bath the children while
she is preparing their food, though sometimes,
my wife does most of the bathing and cooking
at the same time.
A man from Bodija also opined:
I sometimes fetch water especially when the water is not
running (tap water). I take the kegs to the borehole centre
because I know it will be too heavy for my wife to carry. I
sometimes help to clean the surroundings too.
Many low class men however insisted that domestic chores are meant for
women and men should not be involved at all. They insisted men’s
involvement in domestic chores is unheard of and abominable. To them,
only jobless men involve in household chores to compensate for their
laziness, joblessness and failure. Views of many of the men interviewed at
Oja’ba, Beere and Agbowo areas are consistent with the one below:

7842
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

It is not okay for a man, (husband) to be doing

household chores. He can do it when he has no
job or lazy, because the wife will taunt him if
he didn’t do it.

According to the view above, such men’s involvement in household chores

are compensatory. These views were however not shared by those from
higher socio-economic categories who opined that women should not be
enslaved in the contexts of their homes all in the name of marriage and
tradition. They considered the above worldviews- by the low class-
chauvinistic and retrogressive. The higher class men resonate women rights
as human rights and women right-based approach to social protection and
inclusion in the context of homes/families. Men from Akobo and Bodija, as
a cluster of upper class, said that they engage in household chores because it
is a means of helping their wives:
My wife is not a slave. I would not let her do
all the household chores since she will still go
to work. The only thing I can do is to support
her.
The excerpt above is supported by the one below by a man from Bodija
area:
As far as I am concerned, household chores is
nobody’s responsibility. Anybody can do it in
as much as it is beneficial to both of us.
Although the upper class men also see involvement in household chores as
compensatory in a way it is not in same sense of the lower class men. This is
also against the background that inequality in household allocation of
resources, and responsibilities, are gender driven and determined. According
to Oduro (1992), the decision by men not to adequately compensate women
for time and effort spent on their farms, and other domestic works, can result
in a misallocation of resources within the family (see also Coltrane, 2000,
Anderson, 1999, Davies and Banks, 1992). Hence, it is possible socio-
economic status play some roles in male’s orientation towards household
chores. Men from high social and economic status tend to have more positive
disposition to household chores possibly (see also Aassve, Fuochi, and
Mencarini, 2014, Schober, 2013). Regardless of social status however, males
studied have more feminised orientations towards household chores (see also
Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard, 2010, Klumb, Hoppmann, and Staats, 2006
). That is why many used words like help, support and assist in describing

7843
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

their involvement in household chores even though they engage in household

chores.

Do men enjoy, or endure, engage in household chores? The question of

Sustainability
To sufficiently understand the ramifications and sustainability of male roles
in household chores, we asked men who engage in household chores if they
enjoy their involvement. Although we already know why they involve in
chores is to assist, show love and lessen the burden of spouses, it is
important to document if they enjoy or endure their involvements as pointers
of sustainability. From findings, it is clear that depending on some factors,
some men enjoy or/and endure engaging in household chores. These factors
include show of appreciation by wives or abuse of spousal involvement by
wives, rationalisation of chores by the husbands, culture and tradition,
education and class. Men claim they enjoy household chores but this
depends on the extent to which their wives appreciate them for their
involvement. Once women/wives see men’s involvement as normal and
right, men withdraw their service and consider their involvement as
men/husband abuse. For men to enjoy household chores therefore,
wives/women must appreciate them as only breaking cultural barriers and
stooping to conquer. Moreover, whether men will enjoy chores depend on
the results of their rationalisation and indirect utilisation.

Once men find secondary/auxiliary benefits from their involvement, they

appropriate intrinsic gains from chores. For instance, some men construct
their involvement as a form of routine exercise and love positivisation. In
households with weak love expression, household chores involvement
assumes the roles of love communication for the men. Culture and tradition
also play some determining roles. For men that are loyal to culture and
tradition, they do not usually enjoy chores but see them as burdens they are
merely enduring since it is abnormal in the traditional setting for men to
engage in domestic chores. Again, class and education play a role as lower
class uneducated men endure household chores more and generally have
negative chores improvisation outcomes compared to upper class and more
educated males. The ethnographic summaries below are succinctly
indicative. A man than captured modal opinions in the Akobo and Bodija
areas observed:
Sometimes the household chores turn to be a
kind of exercise. For example, when I am
fetching water and carrying the kegs, I feel
7844
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

sweat and feel as if I have done a rigorous

exercise. It’s (chores) no big deal2.

A man from Akobo area further emphasised:

I do household chores as if I am still a bachelor.
In fact my wife knows that I usually like to
clean the sitting room myself without minding
any stress whatsoever.
A man from Beere area however presented a counter position:
I don’t see any enjoyment a man would derive
from engaging in household chores. A man can
only enjoy it when he cannot perform his
responsibilities (financial provision) as a
husband in the house.
A man from Akobo area further observed:
I enjoy it because I see it as a normal thing and I
can do it anywhere. I usually do it while I was
single. So, it is not hard for me to do it now, and
I enjoy it.
A man from Agbowo area insisted vehemently:
In fact, it is taboo for a man to be doing household
chores. The question is why he married from the
outset3. At least, the man married so that the wife
can take care of the children and do the household
chores. Awon okunrin ti ko ba to oko se lo ma n sise
ile (It is those men who are not capable/worthy to
be husbands that do household chores).
Another enjoyment/endurance determining factor that we found in analysis
is the role of spousal socialisation from childhood. Men who were socialised
into doing chores as children and bachelors tend to have more positive
disposition to household chores involvement while those who were not
socialised that way demonstrate negative attitude to household chores
involvement. The role of early life child socialisation into household chores

2
This is an important improvisation of chores in society where many claim to be
too busy and too poor to go to gym. Even among the upper class, the culture of
visiting the gym for exercise if very premature and often considered expensive.
Standard gyms are also not very common in Ibadan.
3
In the context, it is common for many to believe that the major reason for
marrying a woman is to have someone that will do domestic chores which are not
culturally expected of men but of women.
7845
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

is thus very crucial and critical in determining later life men involvement in
household chores.

Theoretical Framework and Discussion of Findings

There have been theoretical interests in the phenomenon of invisible
women’s domestic work burden. In the Social Sciences, particularly,
Sociology, Gender and Family Studies, this interest crystalised in mid-1970s
with the publication of Oakleys’ The Sociology of Housework. Much of
theoretical engagements since this time have however been in the western
developed contexts and this is why it is not surprising that there has been
substantial progress in the visibility and actual practice in such contexts
while very little progress has been made in developing societies in terms of
theory and practice. It is thus important to continue theorisation and
empirical investigations in these developing contexts. In this article, based on
our findings, we considered the tripod of epistemology, motivationalism and
structuralism of household chores. By epistemology of household chores, we
recourse to the negative knowledge base of men relative to necessity and
know-how of household chores even in developing contexts though
moderated by other important social factors like intergenerational linkages of
family history and socialisation.

For instance, it may be difficult for men to understand the necessity of

household chores. The timing, appreciation and how to do chores at home
may even be incomprehensible for men in developing contexts while they
find it difficult to see the big deal in women doing the chores which men
even visibly see as invisible in what we term epistemic invisibility of
household chores within contextual gender construct in different worlds and
differing realities. Spouses thus tend to see household chores and
involvement in household chores differently and live in different socio-
mental worlds of household chores leveraging on societal and family
histories. Epistemologically, what people see as important and needing
conscious attention tends to be different. In a social system where men are
generally seen as supposedly economic providers and breadwinners, men
tend to see household chores as female domains and are therefore not very
motivated to engage in such traditional female realm except a man that
cannot perform his function (as insisted by one of our interviewees [see also
Akanle and Ejiade, 2012).Within, motivationalism, men tend to find it
unjustifiable to engage in usually time-consuming household chores.
Sometimes, men may be apprehensive of the social backlash of such

7846
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

engagement thereby diverting the same time to traditionally and socially

rewarding activities.

The social value of male engagement in domestic chores may thus be seen as
too low to warrant such involvement. Men may be, largely, demotivated
relative to household chores especially when they lack the domestic expertise
of chores and women may rebuke and take advantage of them when they do
not carry out the chores correctly. Structuralism within the remit of this
article refers to conflagrations of issues in the social systems that
comprehensively and structurally make it challenging for elaborate male
involvement in domestic chores. Men involvement will depend on outcomes
of negotiations, conformities and deviation from social norms and values in
the social system. Where the social system create structural impediments for
male domestic role involvement in terms of general social roles allocation
and expectations, it will be difficult for men to engage at home. This article
therefore generally rests on the theoretical framework of epistemology,
motivationalism and structuralism as they correlate to project the modal
outcome of male roles in household chores in African contexts.

It is not our intention in this article to reproduce the notion of Africa as

traditional and continuously backward and one where more gender neutral
ideas about housework are only possible without economy, education,
colonialism and westernisation. Adesina and Adomako Ampofo, for
example, have shown clearly that this is not the case in all African societies
and urban centres at least (see Adesina, 2013, Adomako Ampofo, 2003,
2001, 2000). Epistemologies, motivationalisms and structuralisms of
household chores are dynamic and amenable to change given sufficient
understanding of the social processes and this is the case and bound to be the
case in Africa. Our purpose is to simply provide more contexts of the issues
by leveraging on the popular traditional scenarios commonly painted the
literature. Africa is certainly changing and becoming more receptive to more
nuanced and more benevolent gender norms affecting domestic chores even
though some traditional gender values subsist. The common perspective in
Nigeria and Ibadan relative to domestic roles is widespread traditionality but
with increasing urbanisation coupled with ancillaries of westernisation, there
is beginning to be a shift in household perspectives. It is clear that we offered
multiple response options and some of these responses are dichotomous.

For instance, while some of the interviewees observed that men who do
housework are the best some also feel such men are stupid. Critical factors
7847
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

determining this as found are household authourity structure and men current
as well as intergenerational background. For those households with sharp
hierarchical male authourity structure, male involvement is seen as
unacceptable but where authourity structures are more democratic and
participatory, male involvement is more positively seen. Also, where social
statuses of the spouses are high, there is more inclusive and participatory
male involvement in household chores. A key factor in household structure
and male involvement is degree of involvement or distance of in-laws
relation. Where in-laws of husbands do not frequent couples’ homes, there
tends to be sustained male involvement in household chores. This is usually
because paternal in-laws tend not to tolerate male involvement in domestic
chores which they see as an anathema against the background of their
traditional worldviews as in-laws are usually of older generations.

According to Arrighi and Maume (2000), inequalities have stimulated

sociological research and scholars are puzzled by the relatively slow change
in domestic activities in a rapidly changing social context. And for DeMaris
and Longmore (1996), despite clear evidence that gender inequalities exist
in the division of household labour between the two sexes, most men and
women regard this division as fair (see also Evans, 1991). Against this
background, our research/article found a little shift and dynamics in
construction of male roles in household chores in an African context. We
found that some men are having increasingly positive perception and attitude
to participation in domestic roles unlike three decades ago. Even though the
spate of change may be slow and small as pessimistically documented by
Arrighi and Maume (2000/2002), we found some change and this may
indicate a line of action for practice and scholarship. This positive change is
however not blanket and sweeping. Urbanisation, social class, culture and
tradition and early life socialisation outcomes play a moderating role in
determining male roles in domestic chores.

According to the Human Capital Theory, people of different genders have

different use of time in the context of home and outside. Time is a capital
and roles are convertible capital. So, in African male breadwinning
contextualities, men are seen to be in tune to making money for family
upkeep while women are segmented for home chores (Akanle and Ejiade,
2012). This article has somewhat expanded the Human Capital Theory to the
extent that more men, depending on class though, are contributing to
household chores and are converting the chores to capital in terms of
economics of exercises rather than paying for gym sessions and as social
7848
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

capital for expressing love, affection and support to their spouses but also
deconstructing extant culture and tradition in the order of Post-modernism.

Against this background, we evolve the concept of The Socio-Economic

Capital Convertibilism of Household Chores (TS-ECC). That is, once men
develop the capability to rationalise the socio-economic benefits of
household chores equating the benefits to social and economic capital, they
will enjoy their involvement more and participate more. Inability to develop
this capability will however reduce male involvement in household chores.
As more men engage in household chores therefore, they strengthen their
marriages, express their love symbolically, challenge extant culture and
tradition and gain some important socio-economic credits by, for instance,
converting chores time/processes/labour to gym cost in more friendly setting
of home (see also Khawaja and Habib, 2007). In this article, we do not
outrightly support the Division of Labour Theory of household chores which
stipulates that different genders only play different roles as driven by
traditional gender norms. Both men and women can swap roles and play
overlapping roles that are mutually reinforcing depending on the results of
epistemology, motivationalism and structuralism moderated by the context
of homes and socio-economic gain appropriation derivable through the
socio-economic capital convertibilism of household chores (TS-ECC).

Conclusion
Our conclusion from this article is that although the variety of men’s views
about housework and their role in its performance suggest that the “gender
revolution” has not entirely taken hold of this nation, a possible momentum
for change is indicated in the setting. We are not overgeneralising on the
issues engaged and findings neither are we over-ambitious. Our intention is
to re-interrogate African social formations, family relations and male roles in
domestic chores as contributions to data, literature, scholarship and policies.
And to contribute to discussions and debates on the dynamics and nuances of
gender, domestic chores and family in developing contexts. Through this
article, we are contributing emerging perspectives to the usually taken for
grant evolving male roles in domestic chores in meta-narratives of gender
and family discourse in African societies. Generally, we have not really
contributed this article as counter position but as complementary and
expanding position on a very critical and dynamic issue affecting everyone
directly or indirectly.

7849
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

References
Adesina, J.O. 2013. African Social Formations, Family and Social Policy.
Keynote Lecture delivered at the 2013 Archie Mafeje Memorial
Colloquium, Archie Mafeje Research Institute, University of South
Africa, Tshwane, 27 March.
Adomako Ampofo, A. 2000. Resource Contributions, Gender orientation and
reproductive decision making in Ghana: The case of Urban couples.
Research Reviews NS. 15.2. Pp. 93-125.
Adomako Ampofo, A. 2003. The sex trade, globalization and issues of
survival in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ghana Studies. 6. Pp. 59-90.
Adomako Ampofo, A. 2001. When men speak women listen: Gender
socialization and young adolescents’ attitudes to sexual and
reproductive issues. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 5.3. Pp.
196-212.
Aina, I. Olabisi. 1998. “Women, culture and Society” in Amadu Sesay and
Adetanwa Odebiyi (eds). Nigerian Women in Society and
Development. Dokun Publishing House, Ibadan
Akanle, O. 2011. Post-Colonial Nation Building, Global Governance,
Globalization, and Development in Nigeria and Africa. Africa
Insight. 41 (3). Pp. 1-15.
Akanle, O. 2011. The Sociology of Gender Equality and Development in
Democratizing Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Sociology and
Anthropology. 9. Pp. 22-36.
Akanle, O. 2012a. Introduction to Development Studies in The Basics of
Social Sciences. Ogundiya, I.S. and Amzat, J. eds. Sokoto: Usmanu
Dan Fodio University. Pp. 45-68.
Akanle, O. 2012b. The Ligaments of Culture and Development in Nigeria.
International Journal of Applied Sociology. 2 (3). Pp. 16-21.
Akanle, O. 2014. Virtue for Sustainable Development in Contemporary
Nigeria: The Role of Women. Being a 2nd Gratia Associates
Distinguished Public Lecture Delivered in Honour of Mrs.
Afoloshade M. Alliyu. Nigeria: Gratia Associates International.
Akanle, O. and Chukwu, C. 2013. Alabaru: Head Porterage in Ibadan,
Nigeria. Asian and African Studies. 22 (1). Pp. 49-64.
Akanle, O. And Ejiade, O.O. 2012. Traditionalism and Household Chores in
Ibadan, Nigeria. International Journal of Sociology of the Family.
38. 2. Pp. 203-224.
Akanle, O. And Olutayo, A.O. 2012a.Women’s Right as the Missing Link in
Poverty Eradication in Nigeria. East African Journal of Human
Rights. 18.1. Pp. 227-241.
7850
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

Akanle, O. and Olutayo, A.O. 2012b. Ethnography of Kinship Constructions

among International Returnees in Nigeria: Proverbs as the Horses of
Words. Journal of Anthropological Research. 68.2. Pp. 249-272.
Anderson, M.B. 1999. Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace-or War.
161 Pages.
Ansell, A. 2005. Children, Youth and Development. London/New York:
Routledge.
Aassve, A., Fuochi, G. and Mencarini, L. 2014 Desperate Housework:
Relative Resources, Time Availability, Economic Dependency, and
Gender Ideology Across. Europe Journal of Family Issues. 35(8):
1000-1022.
Beal, C.R. 1994. Boys and Girls: The Development of Gender Roles. New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Belsky, J.,and Kelly, J. 1994. The transition to parenthood. New York:
Delacorte Press.
Bem, S. L. 1993. The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual
equality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bernhardt, E. and Turunen, J. 2014. Long-Term Effects of Gender Role
Attitudes on the Transition to Parenthood: Do Egalitarian Men
Catch Up? Paper to be presented at session 89, PAA meetings,
Boston, 2014
Blood, R. O. and Wolfe, D. M. 1960. Husbands and Wives. New York: Free
Press.
Coltrane, S. 2000. Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the
social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 62, 1208–1233.
Connell, R.W. and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. Hegemonic Masculinity:
Rethinking the Concept. Gender & Society 19:829-59.
Coverman, Shelley. 1985. Explaining husbands’ participation in domestic
labor. Sociological Quarterly. 26 (1): 81-97.
Davies, B., and Banks, C. 1992. The gender trap: A feminist poststructuralist
analysis of primary School children's talk about gender. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 24, 1-25.
DeMaris, A. and Longmore, M. A.1996.Ideology, Power, and Equity:
Testing Competing Explanations for the Perception of Fairness in
Household Labor. Social Forces, 74 (3), 1043-1071.
Evertsson, M. 2014. Gender Ideology and the Sharing of Housework and
Child Care in Sweden. Journal of Family Issues. 35(7): 927-949.
Gaspar, S. and Klinke, M. 2009. Household division of labour among
European mixed partnerships, CIES e-Working Paper 78, CIES-
7851
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

ISCTE-IUL, Lisboa.
Geist, C. 2005. The Welfare State and the Home: Regime Differences in the
Domestic Division of Labour. European Sociological Review
21(1):23-41.
Geist, C., and P.N. Cohen. 2011. Headed toward equality? Housework
change in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and
Family. 73 (4): 832–844.
Gleitman, H., Fridlund, A. J. and Reisberg, D. 2000. Basic Psychology. New
York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.
Gupta, S. 1999. The effects of marital status transitions on men’s housework
performance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 700–711.
Hook, J. 2010. Gender Inequality in the Welfare State: Sex Segregation in
Housework, 1965-2003. American Journal of Sociology 115(5).
1480-523.
Heisig, J.P. 2011. Who Does More Housework: Rich or Poor? A Comparison
of 33 Countries. American Sociological Review. 76 (1). 74–99.
Kamo, Y. 2000. Assessing Discripancies in Husbands and Wives Reports on
the Division of Household. Social Sciences Research, pp. 29: 459-
476.
Karanja, Wambui Wa. 1983. “Conjugal Decision-making: Some Data from
Lagos” Pp. 236-241 in Male and Female in West Africa. By C.
Oppong (ed.). London: George Allen and Unwin.
Khawaja, K.J. and Habib, R.R. 2007. Husband involvement in Housework
and women’s Psychosocial Health: Findings from population-based
study in Lebanon. American Journal of Public Health. 97(5): 860-
866.
Kiselica, M. S., Englar-Carlson, M., Horne, A. M., and Fisher, M. 2008. A
positive psychology perspective on helping boys. In M. S. Kiselica,
M. Englar-Carlson, A. M. Horne (Eds.), Counseling troubled boys: A
guidebook for professionals. New York: Routledge/Taylor and
Francis Group. Pp. 31-48.
Klumb, P., Hoppmann, C., and Staats, M. 2006. Division of labor in German
dual-earner families: Testing Testing equity theoretical hypotheses.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 870 – 882.
Lachance-Grzela, M., and Bouchard, G. 2010. Why do women do the lion's
share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles 63:767-80.
Olawoye, J. E. 2001. Gender Socialization and Male Responsibility in
Family: A Comparative Analysis of Three Socio-Cultural Groups in
Nigeria. Annals of the Social Science Academy of Nigeria. No 13
(January-December), pp. 92-108.
7852
Gender & Behaviour, 14 (3) 2016

Olawoye, Janice E.; Okoye, Obianuju and Eleri, Adeola.2010. Gender and
Climate Change Toolkit for Policy Makers and Programme
Developers NigeriaCAN / C4C / DFID / ICEED, Abuja. (ISBN 978-
978-909-493-6).
Olawoye, Omololu, Aderinto, Adeyefa, Adeyemo, and Osotimehin, 2010.
Social Construction of Manhood in Nigeria: Implications for Male
Responsibility in Reproductive Health. African Population Studies,
Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, Pp. 1-20.
Olutayo, A.O and Akanle O. 2007. Modernity, MacDonaldisation and
Family Values in Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Sociology and
Anthropology. 5. Pp. 53-72.
Olutayo, A.O. and Akanle, O. 2011. Fighting the “Poverty War”: Non-
Governmental Organizations and the Challenge of Poverty
Eradication in Nigeria. In Mutis, A.P. and Okuro, S.O. eds.
Strategies Against Poverty: Designs from the North and Alternatives
from the South. Argentina: CLACSO-CROP.Pp. 245-272.
Orloff, A. S. (2002). Women’s employment and welfare regimes:
Globalization, export Orientation and social policy in Europe and
North America. Social Policy and Development, Program Paper
Number 12. United Nations Research Institute for Social
Development. Pp. 1 – 49.
Pfohl, S. (1992). Death at the parasite cafe. Social science (fictions) and the
postmodern.
Philaretou, A.G., and Allen, K.R. (2001). Reconstructing masculinity and
sexuality. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 9:3, 301-321.
Pittman, F. 1993. Man enough: Fathers, sons and the search for masculinity.
New York, NY: Putnam.
Presser, Harriet B. 1994. Employment schedules among dual-earner spouses
and the division of household labor by gender. American
Sociological Review 59 (3): 348-64.
Qian, Y. and Sayer, L.C. 2012. Division of Labor, Gender Ideology, and
Marital Satisfaction: A Comparative Analysis of Mainland China,
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Paper submitted for consideration
at the 2013 Population Association of America Annual Meeting,
New Orleans, LA.
Rathus, S.A., and Nevid, J.S. 2002. Psychology and the challenges of life.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Rexroat, C. and Shehan, C. 1987. The Family Life Cycle and Spouses' Time
in Housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49 (4), 737-750.
Reynolds, W. M. 1987. Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale. Professional
7853
Akanle O., Adesina J & Ogbimi A.O.: Men at Work Keep-Off…

Manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Rodgers, R. H., and White, J. M. 1993. Family Development Theory. In
Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods, ed. P. Boss, W.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Shumm, and S. Steinmetz. New York:
Plenum Press.
Schwartz, L.A., Markham, W.T., 1985. Sex stereotyping in children’s toy
advertisements. Sex Roles 12, 157-170.
South, S. J. and Glenna Spitze, G. 1994. Housework in Marital and
Nonmarital Households. American Sociological Review, 59 (3), 327-
347.
South, S., and Spitze, G. 1994. Housework in marital and non-marital
households. American Sociological Review, 59, 327–347.
Uchendu, E. 2007. Masculinity and Nigerian Youths. Nordic Journal of
African Studies 16, no. 2. Pp. 279-297.
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
Research and Policy Brief. Gendered Impacts of Globalization:
Employment and Social Protection.
Weiner, B.I., Milon, T. and Lerner, J. M. (Eds). (2003). Handbook of
Psychology Vol.5: Personality and Social Psychology. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons.
Weiten, W. and Lloyd, A. M. 2003. Psychology applied to modern life:
Adjustment in the 21st Century. (7th ed.). Belmont: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Whitchurch, G. G. and Constantine, L. L. 1993. Systems Theory. In P. G.
Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz
(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual
approach. New York: Plenum Press

7854
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

View publication stats