Name : Muskan Chahal

Roll No: 2022/674

Course: BA(H) Sociology
Paper: Sociology of Gender

Discuss the Feminist Perspective on Household work and Authority.

The feminist critique of household dynamics has been a longstanding and

critical area of analysis and advocacy. By examining the gendered division of
labour and power relations within families across diverse societies, feminist
scholars have highlighted persistent patterns of gender inequality that
disadvantage and oppress women. The pioneering works of sociologists like
Ann Whitehead, Rajni Palriwala and others provide a comprehensive basis for
understanding the nuances of the feminist perspective on household work and
authority.
At its core, feminist thought has challenged patriarchal ideologies and
institutions that have historically marginalized women’s roles, contributions and
decision-making capacities within the domestic sphere. By analyzing household
dynamics through an intersectional lens, feminists have exposed how gender
intersects with other axes of oppression like class, race, ethnicity and nationality
to produce complex experiences of subordination for women in their families.
The feminist interrogation of the household has not only involved scrutinizing
its internal power geometries, but has also examined how broader economic,
political and cultural forces shape and reify inequalities at the micro family
level. This perspective challenges the traditional notion of the household as a
harmonious, cooperative unit and instead highlights the underlying conflicts of
interest and asymmetrical power relations between husbands and wives.
Furthermore, this viewpoint disproves the stereotype of women as helpless
victims by emphasising their agency in navigating and negotiating their roles
within patriarchal frameworks. The feminist criticism provides a more complex
understanding of the family as a site of both oppression and resistance, where
gender relations are continuously challenged and renegotiated, by looking at
women’s coping mechanisms and techniques.
Feminist Critique on Household Work

At the core of the feminist perspective on household work lies a profound

critique of the gendered division of labour within the domestic sphere. Across
diverse societies and economic systems, women bear a disproportionate burden
of domestic labour, including tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and caring for
children and elderly family members. This uneven distribution of household
responsibilities is often rooted in patriarchal ideologies that associate domestic
work with women’s “natural” roles and responsibilities, reinforcing their
subordinate position within the household.
Whitehead’s analysis of a relatively egalitarian household based production
systems like Ghanaian village of Kusasi offers a compelling illustration of this
phenomenon where exists a stark delineation between the agricultural labour
undertaken by men versus the domestic chores relegated to women.
Women are obligated to work on the household millet farms under the direction
of the male household head, in addition to their responsibilities on their private
farms and domestic chores. This double burden of productive and reproductive
labour highlights the non-comparability of husband’s and wife’s contributions to
the household economy, with women’s labour often undervalued and taken for
granted compared to market-oriented economic activities dominated by men.
Similarly, in the context of industrial Britain, feminist scholars have challenged
the pervasive notion of the “family wage” system, which presumed that
husbands were the sole breadwinners, and wives were dependent on their
husbands’ incomes. This ideology obscured women’s economic contributions
through paid labour and unpaid domestic work, reinforcing their subordinate
position within the household and perpetuating the perception of their labour as
a natural extension of their gender roles.
Furthermore, the feminist perspective highlights how the commodification of
economies and the rise of capitalist modes of production have reshaped but not
eliminated the gendered division of household labour. Palriwala’s study of the
village of Panchwas in Rajasthan, India, demonstrates how economic changes,
such as the growth of non-agricultural employment and male worker
emigration, have devalued women’s economic contribution through household
labour while simultaneously reinforcing their dependence on individual male
breadwinners.
Feminist scholars have systematically challenged such patriarchal assumptions
that position housework as unproductive labourer as unimportant. They have
argued that housework and reproductive labour are not only essential for
replenishing the workforce on a daily basis but also for reproducing the
workforce. Thus, by being unpaid, invisibilized, devalued and forced upon
women, household work represents a form of systemic appropriation and
exploitation of female labour.
Feminists have exposed how socially entrenched gendered divisions of labour
create dual oppressive burdens for women – their productive efforts are
extracted and undercompensated, while their disproportionate responsibility for
reproductive household labour is seen as naturalized, taken for granted and
unmeasured economic contribution. The he acceptance of women’s unpaid
domestic labour is a crucial area for feminist engagement.

Feminist Critique of Household Authority

Beyond the gendered division of labour, the feminist perspective also

scrutinizes the power dynamics and decision-making processes within
households, challenging the assumption of a unified household budget and
equal resource sharing. Across diverse contexts, studies have revealed
asymmetrical access to and control over resources between husbands and wives,
exposing the hierarchies of power that govern household authority.
In the Kusasi village, Whitehead highlights how men, particularly wealthy
farmers, retain control over their cash incomes and do not contribute to staple
food provisioning, which is expected to come from the household farms and the
male household head’s millet stores. Women, on the other hand, are expected to
use their smaller cash earnings to feed their children, especially during the lean
season, reflecting their limited control over household resources and decision-
making processes.
This asymmetry in resource control is further exemplified in the British
working-class context, where Whitehead discusses the various systems of
household income allocation, such as the “whole wage” and “allowance”
systems. Under these systems, husbands maintain control over personal
spending money, while wives often have limited autonomy over their earnings
or housekeeping allowances. This unequal distribution of power and decision-
making authority within the household exemplifies the hierarchies of
subordination and the non-comparability of housework and wage labour,
reinforcing women’s lack of agency and autonomy within the domestic sphere.
Palriwala’s study of Panchwas village further illustrates how economic
processes have reinforced patrilineal ideologies and women’s dependence on
male guardians, diminishing their authority over household consumption and
decision-making. The growth of a cash economy and the need for non-
household earnings have reduced women’s management of consumption as men
gained more control over cash inflows, further marginalizing women’s voices
and agency within the household.
At the core of the feminist analysis is an understanding that masculine decision-
making authority within households across diverse contexts is fundamentally
rooted in and reinforced by patriarchal kinship ideologies and social structures
that privilege patrilineal descent, male patrimony and the subjugation of women
as dependent members. Rise of individual male wage labour have intensified
these patrilineal power imbalances while constraining women’s already limited
avenues for negotiation.

Negotiating Household Power Dynamics

While critiquing the unequal distribution of household work and authority, the
feminist perspective also recognizes women’s agency and strategies in
negotiating these power dynamics.
Palriwala highlights how women in Panchwas employed tactics such as
favouring sons over daughters when distributing food to strengthen mother-son
bonds and ensure future security. Additionally, women zealously guarded their
limited control over domains like daily consumption and food stocks as one of
the few areas where they could exercise authority.
In Kusasi, women utilize lucrative cash crops from their “private farms” to meet
personal consumption needs and those of their children during times of scarcity.
Though restricted in scale compared to men’s farms, this income source
provides some economic agency.
Among British working-classes, wives developed methods to reclaim some
control over household finances like receiving the entirety of the husband’s
wage for housekeeping and issuing him an allowance – albeit still rooted in
patriarchal provisioning roles.
Furthermore Whitehead underscores how the conjugal contract, or the terms by
which husbands and wives exchange goods, incomes, services, and labour
within the household, universally creates conflicts of interest between spouses
regarding the distribution of resources and meeting consumption needs. Marital
disputes often concern expenditures from putatively “shared” resources,
exposing the fallacy of the household as a collective of mutual interests and
highlighting women’s struggles to assert their agency and negotiate their
positions within these power dynamics.
However, these strategies often paradoxically affirmed and reinforced the very
family ideologies and patrilineal systems that constrained women’s autonomy.
Women’s negotiations were rooted in their structural disadvantage and limited
bargaining power within the household, reflecting the material conflicts of
interest between husbands and wives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the feminist perspective on household work and authority

presents a critical examination of the gendered division of labour and power
dynamics within the household. Drawing from diverse cultural and economic
contexts, this perspective challenges the traditional notion of the household as a
harmonious, cooperative unit and instead highlights the underlying conflicts of
interest and asymmetrical power relations between husbands and wives.
Women’s unpaid household labour is systemically rendered invisible and
economically uncompensated. Their authority is undermined by being
constructed as dependent members of male-headed family structures, with
minimal bargaining power. As new economic forces like commodification
interact with traditional kinship systems, women face increased vulnerability
and constraints in accessing the very family resources their labour generates.
Feminist perspective argues that household inequalities stem from deep-rooted
patriarchal social structures that require fundamental transformation.