Literature review

The gender roles in a heterosexual relationship can be included in sexual relations,

job prospects and overall family satisfaction.
The inequality of gender relations is a foundation for the following transformations, and
gender relations itself become fundamental regulating relationships in every social form
(Mojab, 2015). It is vital to establish a definition and distinction for the terms “gender” and
“sex” primarily, in order to better understand and utilize these notions in this paper. The
thought behind the label “sex” is an assignment to a specific person at their birth, based on
their genitals. On the other hand, “gender” is understood as more of a spectrum for a
number of people, and for most, it is a set of societally accepted metrics, rules, fictitious
standards and expectations, predominately constructed on one’s sex (Carreiro, 2021). Each
country, culture and formed society have their presumed behaviours and appearances that
create a norm for both females and males based on their sex, and in most cases can be
divided into four separate yet connected categories: traits of personality, physical presence,
domestic characteristics and manner, and occupations (Carreiro 2021, Planned Parenthood
2020). In the past years, self-gender identification has become more socially accepted,
allowing a vast number of people to express themselves better and more appropriately.
Unfortunately, the world is not yet completely progressed, and gender norms are widely
and forcibly pushed on a great quantity of individuals; a great deal of discrimination causing
gender dysphoria can be observed in various religions that reject the idea of something
other than God-given sexes (Parkinson, 2023). Needless to say, the current public is
extremely diverse, therefore it would be inappropriate to assume that a person can provide
a factual number of individuals both open and proud in their spectrum of gender, and
contrarily people who are transphobic. However, during the past few decades, the concept
of "gender" and its precise definition have evolved.
In an article from 1964, gender identity is recognized as a “sense of knowing to which sex
one belongs” thus it aims to explain it in a form of awareness between acknowledging and
experiencing the perception of being male or female. On the following pages, the author
presents a case, a study in the form of an interview, with a concerned mother who claims
her daughter is not what she hoped for the child was chaotic and too energetic for a girl, she
only played with neighbourhood boys, and dressed like them, which, as the mother claims,
“I couldn’t play with her”. The tone of the entire interview has a ton as if the daughter had
to be purely elegant, sweet and calm, even as a baby, and the mother wanted to treat her
more like a pet, one can control to the full extent. In the daughter’s adolescent years,
doctors found out she was genetically intersex, which led the medical professionals, on
account that she did not wish to wear girl’s clothes at all, that she was in fact a boy from
that moment forward. Following this event, the daughter kept on dressing and acting as a
“boy” and grew up to be attracted to girls. Moreover, the research pushes the notion that
“This line of reasoning tends to confirm what many have suggested, that extremely
effeminate men and masculine women (e.g. transvestites) are the result of an unhappy
combination of a weaker biological push toward proper gender” (Stoller, 1964). Another
old-fashioned study from 1986 presents a similar yet more progressive perspective. The
authors realize former attempt on distinguishing the notions of “sex” and “gender”,
however they firmly indicate the far greater frequency of using those words simultaneously.
Following, the subject of biological sex and gender categorization is presented as paired at
birth and later in life determined (in theory) separately while exemplifying an occurrence of
transexual individuals. Nevertheless, the paper ongoingly suggests that “masculinity” and
“femininity” are purely linked to gender identity (Ashmore, 1986). Both of the concepts are
currently unusable in understanding the subject, as now it is acknowledged biological
factors and the development of gender identity are two separate parts of a human
(Steensma, 2013). The connection between stereotypical gender roles and identifying
“gender” itself is greatly needed in understanding why women and men have been assigned
particular tasks at home.
Based on the numerous studies on gender roles, and particularly on the Deborah A.
Prentice and Erica Carranza paper titled “What Women and Men Should Be, Shouldn’t Be,
Are Allowed to Be, and Don’t Have to Be: The Contents of Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes”
from 2002 it is possible to understand gender separation together with women’s and men’s
roles in the relationship. There is a deep-rooted belief that women are seen as more warm
and caring than men, which itself can be described as a complement (Prentice, Carranza
2002). On the other hand, stereotypically, females are considered somewhat weaker, and
more fragile, whilst men are perceived as strong and agentic better-humans. Undertaking
simple research, outside of academic studies, one can notice the misogynistic to a certain
degree, existing in a double-standard world naked definition of a male human being.
Looking up synonyms of “manly” in the Google search will result in uncloaking in powerful
terms such as “brave”, “courageous” or “heroic”. These synonyms provide us with a
definition of a man: an individual who is fearless and is perceived as a hero in our society.
At the same time, following up with the opposite words, Google displays “weak”,
“effeminate” and “cowardly” amongst others. This is a perception of a female. Simply by
trying to find synonyms for one, simple word, it is possible to observe the stereotypical
translation of the two genders. The logical impact of promoting this specific view of the
sexes, their abilities and traits is extremely harmful, as in today’s world most people have
access to the Internet, including children, and with particular alertness, little girls, who by
simply trying to find a synonym for their own name, as a human individual, are being
presented as less than their male friends. Surely, Google research is not the condition that
created gender stereotypes, however, it is the one that continues them.
The formation of gender identity starts in the early years of development and is influenced
by the outside world segments, such as environment, relationships and information.
Referencing Simone de Beavouir's infamous quote “one is not born, but, rather, becomes a
woman”, gender, in this sense, is not a stable identity, or a location of agency from which
different actions were taken, instead, it is an identity that is shakily constructed over time
and established by a stylized repetition of actions. Moreover, gender is installed through the
stylization of numerous body enactments, gestures and movements, thus must be viewed
as a form of pure illusion of a continuing gender self (Butler, 2008). Obvious differences in
body language and image between the two dominating sexes are the double-standard
mannerism from how to properly sit and speak to a dissatisfied view of the body and eating
disorders, pushed by more pressuring demands towards, as mostly observed, women, are
simply authentic examples of how the portrayal of genders is being inequitably shaped
throughout the whole life of an individual (Voges, 2019). Mentioning Foucault, amongst
others, Butler points out that the connection of a natural sex with a distinct gender and with
an apparently “organic” attraction to the opposing dominating sex/ gender is in reality an
artificial combination of cultural constructs solely serving the reproductive interests. One
could contend that oppressive conditions would cease to exist in the absence of humans,
whose numerous actions, broadly interpreted, create and sustain them; it is important to
remember that there is no one-way or unmediated interaction between "acts
and conditions”.
For the reasons that gender is performative, as Butler’s theory claims, it solely exists as a
result of repeated behaviours, therefore, gender identity is expressed through specific
behaviours that either challenge or comply with perceived sex-based expectations and
demands. Furthermore, if gender is performative, it is produced through repeated social
presentations rather than originating from an innate identity. This exposes gender
identity as a social construct, a series of “instructions” taught and enforced from early
years. Consequently, gender itself is not a “role” that discloses an inner self, rather than
an act that creates a form of appearance, or illusion of internal identity (Butler, 2008).
The social gender dynamics are deeply intertwined with status beliefs, such as social
hierarchy and gender stereotypes, that lead to the principle associated with greater
competence, importance and worthiness of men over women (Ridgeway, 2002). “More
than a trait of individuals, gender is an institutionalized system of social practices” Ridgeway
states, subsequently providing an explanation of the gender stereotypes circumstances.

One in third person identifies as a Christian, leading to quite restricted beliefs, following
nongovernment and independent convictions and ethics (Wasserman, 2024). This paper’s aim
is not to answer whether those values are right (assuming that there is undoubtedly a correct
definition of that term) or not, however, to provide a simple understanding of how they
intertwine with the gender roles in heterosexual relationships. Multiple religions around the
world promote a patriarchal nature and hold gender roles as essential characteristics and
Church’s tradition (Leavitt, 2021). Christianity stands on the more conservative side; it teaches
a traditional gender roles ideology, increases self-silencing behaviours and promotes lower
career ambitions (Eliason, 2017). According to Eliason’s, Hall’s, Anderson’s and Willingham’s
research from 2017, participants who had more traditional religious beliefs about gender have
as well believed in the more traditional gender ideology and role assignment. Furthermore,
the study reveals that women with those principles had lower career aspirations, and were
more exposed to body shaming, self-silence, submission, sexist beliefs and emphasis on their
reproductive functions. In numerous variations of Christianity and similar religions, women
are viewed as less than men; both in church’s and temple’s settings, as in their own homes.
Female counterparts hold mostly household labour while having their aspirations limited to
what men would mostly expect from them (Leavitt, 2021). In this specific religious case, the
person “holding the power” is the individual whose voice carries more sound, and has more
meaning.

The so-called “power dynamics” that are present in a heteronormative relationship can be
viewed as a parallel to the societal power struggle that aims to expand their territories,
oftentimes with the use of force and threat (Weber, 1910). “Domination is… a special case
of power” within the “positive commitment on the part of the subordinate to the authority
they obey is a cardinal feature” argues Max Weber. Taking that into consideration, the
patriarchal notion is fundamentally a concept where men rule over women in a form of
unstoppable domination; and a perfect reason for feminism to form and exist (Sydie,
1994). The greatest thinkers, among others Max Weber agreed that the “original”
household had been a force-based patriarchal one (Thomas, 1985).
Depending on the country and state, married women earned the right to personally own a
property in the second half of the 1800s, with the United Kingdom passing the Married
Women Property Act in 1882, by 1930, the laws that regarded divorce and matrimonial
goods were finally gender equalized; beginning in 1917/1918 women won their battle for
the right to vote; 1960s were the years addressing equal pay (question and resolution of
that issues is ongoingly in process) and prohibiting discrimination towards women and
protecting equal rights; are the few powers given (fought for) to female citizens,
performing a way to amend for the years of oppression (Hallward-Driemier 2013,
Fernandez 2013, DeLuzio 2010). Unfortunately, some laws such as the right to abortion that
were first introduced so far as in the 1850s and popularized in the 1900s in some countries,
solely existed to be later taken away, with examples of the United States of America and
the Republic of Poland.
Meta-analysed sex differences in most usual acts of physical aggression in heterosexual
settings, reveal not solely the frequency of these offences, yet in addition the means that
are being undertaken to attack a partner. Most of the “minor” aggression acts such as
kicking, biting, slapping and in some instances throwing objects were performed by women
and in most cases were not followed by an injury of their partner. On the other hand, men
had a tendency to carry out more violent reactions, for example beating up, choking
strangling and executing them more commonly than women (Archer, 2002). Another study
shows that one in three women reported being victimized, in comparison to men where
depending on the level of aggression, the harassment happens in one in three or one in two
cases. Additionally, the more violent acts the less frequently were they occurring (Carrado,
1996). Comparing data from research such as Archer’s and Weber’s definition of power, one
can draw a conclusion as to why the more threatening and aggressive acts are performed by
men and if it is interlinked with a desire to take control (as in “expand their territory”) over
their female partner. Creating a hostile environment can lead to “moulding” one’s partner
into a desired persona, based on fear rather than love. Abuse is not solely physical or verbal,
yet it can be a passive-aggressive forced perception of what an individual should do and be.

Both Melissa Vink, Belle Derks, Naomi Ellemers, and Tanja van der Lippe in their study
“Penalized for Challenging Traditional Gender Roles: Why Heterosexual Relationships in
Which Women Wear the Pants May Be More Precarious” from 2022 and Andrew Rogers'
article titled “Recent studies prove traditional gender roles bring greatest happiness” from
2014 observe the statistical greatest satisfaction in heterosexual couples if the
stereotypical gender roles are maintained. The study is built upon two researches
undertaken in the United States of America and the Netherlands and its main claim is that
heterosexual relationships in which the female has a higher social status than her male
partner are more dangerous and uncertain.
The authors explain that based on these researchers, it can be observed that the
relationships in which the women are more dominant, men seem weaker, and the
partnerships are overall less likeable and less satisfying. Generally, the paper states that
in order to achieve gender equity, the stereotypical gender roles in heteronormative
relationships should be carefully considered.

Jaquoya Carriero looks at the subject of gender roles from a different perspective and
focuses more on modern marriages’ finances and incomes. In “Gender Roles Bieliefs,
Household Chores, and Modern Marriages” (2021) authors explain the notion of dual-earner
marriages. The term refers to heterosexual couples where both men and women (in this
example husband and wife) are being employed. It wasn’t until the 1960s that those
partnerships started to become more common. Additionally, the author explains the
feminist movement and traditional marriages. The study provides numbers on the
1970s and the 1940s for household earners and divorce rates. It touches on the feminist
movement in the United States and notices how the numbers have changed.

Methodology

The study is being approached using a quantitative method. As stated by Paul Stoneman
and Ian Burton-Smith quantitative research is “an essential approach to social research
which allows us to challenge or support different ideas about social reality.” This approach
has been chosen by me, not solely for the reasons it is the best and most compatible
direction to achieve the purest data from my survey, but additionally, because it is based on
basic scientific credentials; therefore, it is trustworthy and almost always accurate. I am
hoping that this research does not stop on a scholarly level, yet I hope it will help answer
the important, modern questions, at least to some degree.
The “positivist” side of quantitative motion is based on facts-values distinctions. The notion
behind it is that the discovery of facts and research pursued free of values can label the
study as truly “objective” (Gilbert, Stoneman 2015). Nowadays, most modern researchers
do not follow this concept, as a purely scientific approach can be problematic. I believe it
would be extremely difficult or even almost impossible, to find research that used
individuals with no core beliefs. It is vital, especially in my research, to see people,
therefore, study subjects, as not automated beings as they do have feelings, and
personally created notions, that might affect the analysis. In my research, I am using the
second approach and I ask directly what those values are.
The main strengths of this approach that fit my research standards are the ability to
generalize findings and investigate and explain the occurrence by ‘citing causal
mechanisms’, as it oftentimes allows for the prediction of future schemes.
This study measures degrees of difference and tries to form the thesis for why
those differences happened and subsequently analyse them.
Quantitative research works on data that was collected by other publicists and by an
individual who leads the main research. In order to undertake and understand my
hypothesis better, I needed to read and study a great number of research on similar
topics to my interest.
The research will be built using an internet survey that will be accessed through an internet
side and can be opened on mobile phones, tablets and stationary or portable personal
computers. An alternative, directed especially at the older generation, will be a telephone
survey with an individual asking participant-specific questions. The notion behind it was that
the person who would take care of preparing, undertaking, and holding the telephone
survey would be me, withholding anonymity in the highest regard and without inquiring
about any other information that is not essential to the analysis of the questionnaire.
However, to my surprise, not one individual has requested access to the survey by a
telephone call, which left me with almost no data on the Boomers’ generation.
The quantitative perspective on the survey as a research method cooperates with extending
the study pool to the entire globe, through Internet and electronic access, as well as helps
with protecting anonymity and providing more flexibility and visuality to the participants.
The questionnaire will overall include eleven inquiries, with solely nine being mandatory,
using various survey methods, in order to reach the most detailed and accurate intelligence.
The first three questions provided basic facts about the participant. The interviewees didn’t
have to provide their names, yet they were asked to share their sex, nationality, and age.
Later, in the paper, participants were divided into traditional generations (Generation Z,
Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomer Generation) based on their year of birth.
Questions five and eleven gave the participants a multiple choice, and inquiries four and
eight on top of being formed as a multiple choice included how frequently individuals
undertake the tasks listed. The chores entered are: household budgets, with a specification
of housing, savings and utilities; groceries; household chores, that include cleaning, laundry,
vacuuming and dusting; communal meals preparations; childcare, containing help with
education, safety and activities; taking care of pets, covering food, healthcare, safety, fun;
car maintenance; and taking out rubbish. Those tasks were specifically chosen based on
suitability and appropriation to the topic of my study, as well as historically known
stereotypical gender roles in heteronormative households.
MCQs method brings a lot of controversy in aspects of education. However, this research
aims to help participants choose between what might be more difficult to simply write
themselves, as that leaves more room for error and inconsistency. It provides the choices,
thus if an interviewee forgets about a specific task they do, it will probably be included in
the survey.
The fifth and ninth questions are written using a Likert scale. The Likert scale was introduced
by Rensis Likert in 1932 when the researcher published “A Technique for the Measurement
of Attitudes”. This straightforward approach is created on an attitude scale; a notion that
groups of linked questions can evaluate an individual’s perspective on a specific topic,
highlighted by the question (Batterton, Hale 2017).
The fifth question asked about the satisfaction of the designated roles in the household
undertaken by the participant.
The eighth inquiry was designed to find out about the satisfaction with their partner and
the household chores they fulfil. The five-point questions include options: very satisfied,
satisfied, nor satisfied or unsatisfied, slightly satisfied, and not satisfied. The interviewees
were instructed to choose one of the five options.
Lastly, the tenth question focused on the desire of the participant to have their partner
undertake more chores. The answers solely included ‘yes’ and ‘no’. I realize that there is a
great deal of controversy over the YNQs, however, this point in my research was
specifically designed to help establish an answer to the satisfaction of the household chores
with each partner. In a situation where the interviewees chose the option “yes” they were
asked to answer two non-mandatory questions about which of those avoided by their
partner tasks would they like to occur more often. The same type of method is used in
inquiry six, however here I wanted my participants to reflect on their own frequency and
quantity of their household jobs involvement.
In my study there is a crucial need for a transparent answer, thus it will evaluate which sex
is more comfortable with their and their partners' assigned roles. The research aims to
investigate if women are ongoingly delegated to do more ‘feminine’ chores and men
more ‘manly’. In my paper, it is carefully explained what traditional and stereotypical
roles are. Moreover, the result of the survey will decide if those assigned, stereotypical
gender roles are still in our tradition or if they are slowly fading, becoming ‘old-fashioned’
and ‘out of date’.
I am aware of the difficulties that a questionnaire can introduce; it is most likely formed by a
selective group of participants, raising concerns about receiving fewer survey responses
than expected, thus creating a nonresponsive bias (Szolnoki, Hoffman 2013). Considering
the technologies of today, online surveys are open to new possibilities and their advocates
prove that they are becoming more useful and more reliable every day.

Ethics Statement

This research utilized a self-report questionnaire directed towards human participants. The
process was carried out in compliance with the national data controlling law, which the
Goldsmiths, University of London follows. According to the University, additional ethical
consent, apart from the Information Sheet and Consent Form provided to each
participating individual, was not required since the process did not imply any medical or
other practices that could have caused discomfort to those engaged, and the participants
were all healthy adult volunteers. Anonymity has been preserved throughout the entire
data collecting and analysis practices; involved human individuals consented to provide
intelligence of their own free will and were not compensated financially. In order to start
the questionnaire, participants were under an obligation to provide their informed consent.

Findings

This chapter presents the findings collected via the Forms.app. The survey investigates the
distribution of domestic duties between the sexes, with reference to satisfaction levels, and
intended changes in the workload and specifies the tasks each partner undertakes. The data
is presented in numerical and percentage format and is organized by key demographics
including age, gender, and nationality.
The objective was to recruit 100 participants at a minimum, however, given the restricted
resources the outcome figure added up to 82 partakers. The questionnaire was introduced via a
direct internet link, compatible with personal and stationary computers, laptops and mobile
devices, yet every single one of the interviewees chose a computing device. Methods
undertaken to gather the greatest number of participants included link sharing, with a starting
point being relatives and associates; advertisement posts on various internet groups and
personal promoting using my media platform and life human connections built prior to the
beginning of the research. The so-called “snowball” sampling method was utilized in this
study for the reasons being to target the “hard-to-reach” populations (Baltar, 2012).
Considering the limited number of individuals, I personally could share the survey with,
which was far less than 100, the study needed to be extended through a third party in order
to achieve the given goal. Nonetheless, the aid provided by the people involved in the first
phase of the link sharing was not enough. Due to demographic shifts and the natural ageing
process, securing a sufficient number of interviews with members of the Baby Boomer
generation proved challenging, as a significant portion of this population is either deceased
or no longer actively engaged in relevant social networks and could not have gotten the help
to either fill out the questionnaire or to carry it out through a confidential conversation
using a mobile device. Succeeding that, a notable number of individuals from the
Generation X group were discovered to be divorced and without a stable heteronormative
relationship. Following this, Generation Z appeared to be too young to partake in a
committed heterosexual partnership thus the thesis was circled are the notion that most
data would be derived from the members of the Millennials generation. However, the Gen Z
participants provided more than half of the intelligence. Lastly, despite sharing the
questionnaire on social media platforms such as Facebook or Instagram, the receivers
lacked the enthusiasm to supply the needed information.
Respondents came from different nationalities thus the survey was prepared in two
languages: English and Polish, with the means provided to choose one from the proposed
options. Therefore, the questionnaires were divided into Form 1 which was created in the
former language and Form 2 which was in the latter. The most common nationalities in the
Form 1 were British at 13% and American (United States of America) at 5%. The rest of the
32 participants of the first form were divided into 1% each between nationalities, including
Indian, Indian British, Italian, Portuguese, Scottish, British French and Thai. Every single
participant confirmed that they are currently living in either the United Kingdom or the
United States of America upon agreeing to read the Information Sheet and Consent Form.
This provides a culturally diverse insight into Western culture and traditions in terms of
gender roles in addition to previously proposed and aimed for selection between the
United Kingdom and Poland. On the other hand, every single of the participants of Form 2
was Poles, currently functioning within the lines of Poland. 61% were Polish and 9% were
Ukrainian, yet currently living in Poland.
Proceeding, out of the total respondents N=82, in Form 1 63% identified as female and
38% as male. In Form 2 females composed of 64%, whereas males made up 36%.
In the matter of age categories that were presented in the shape of four generations, in
terms of percentage, leading with Generation Z (1996-2012) at 56% in Form 1 and spiking
50% in Form 2, followed by the Millennials (1977-1995) forming 25% in Form 1 and 26% in
Form 2 and concluding with Generation X (1965-1976) standing at 19% (Form 1) and 12%
(Form 2), indicating that the findings primarily reflect the views of a younger demographic.
The Baby Boomer generation (1946-1964) closed at 12% in Form 2, however, gathered no
participants in Form 1.

Form 1 Analysis

In the form created for United Kingdom residents, participants' responses regarding the
frequency with which they performed domestic tasks revealed several notable patterns. A
significant proportion of respondents indicated that they "Always (100%)" manage the
household budget, making it the most frequently reported chore. Similarly, grocery
shopping was commonly selected with the option "Often (60%)," indicating a regular level
of involvement.
When asked about their satisfaction with their own tasks, the most frequent response was a
rating of 4 out of 5 (17 responses), suggesting moderate satisfaction. In contrast,
satisfaction with partners' tasks was most commonly rated at 5 (11 responses), indicating a
higher level of contentment with partners' contributions.
Certain categories, such as childcare and pet care, were identified as the least applicable to
participants across both Form 1 and Form 2, with the majority selecting the "Not
Applicable" option. This suggests that a large portion of respondents may not currently have
children or pets.
Further breakdown by gender illustrated additional patterns. In the management of the
household budget, both women and men predominantly reported "Always (100%),"
although a secondary cluster of women selected "40%." For grocery shopping, both
genders most frequently indicated "60%." In terms of household chores, women most often
reported doing 80% of the work, whereas men most frequently indicated 20%. Meal
preparation followed a similar pattern, with women again reporting 80%, while men’s
responses were more dispersed, including 0%, 20%, 60%, and 80%.
Childcare tasks among women ranged across 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%, while men most
frequently reported 40% and 80%. However, as noted, most participants clarified that they
did not have children. For pet care, most women reported a 100% contribution, while only
one man reported involvement at 40%, aligning with the general trend of low pet
ownership among the sample. Car-related responsibilities showed a sharp gender contrast,
with women typically indicating 20% involvement and men reporting 100%. Waste disposal
responsibilities were also gendered, with women mainly reporting 0% or 20%, and men
most frequently indicating 40%.
Regarding overall satisfaction with personal task distribution, 54.17% of participants rated
their satisfaction as 4 out of 5 stars, while 29.17% gave a top rating of 5 stars. When asked
whether they desired to alter the quantity of chores they performed, responses were evenly
divided: 50% expressed a wish to make changes, while the other 50% did not.
When prompted to identify specific tasks they would prefer to do less of, household chores
were the most frequently cited (nine participants), followed by meal preparation (seven
participants) and grocery shopping (five participants). Satisfaction with a partner's
contribution to domestic tasks was also explored, with 10 respondents awarding 5 stars, 7
awarding 4 stars, and 4 respondents assigning 3 stars.
In terms of generational representation, Generation Z constituted the largest group in Form
1 with 12 participants, followed by Millennials with 8 participants, Generation X with 4, and
no representation from the Baby Boomer generation. Gender distribution across the entire
Form 1 sample showed that 62.5% of participants identified as female, while 37.5%
identified as male.

Form 2 Analysis

The second form of the survey aimed to examine the distribution of household responsibilities
within heterosexual partnerships, with a total of 50 responses collected from
the replier living with Polish borders. This data provided valuable insights into how
frequently individuals engage in specific domestic tasks, their satisfaction with both their
own and their partner's contributions, and their openness to modifying the existing division
of labour.
Among the respondents, 64% identified as female and 36% as male. The generational
composition was predominantly younger, with members of Generation Z (born 1996–2012)
comprising 50% of the participants, followed by Millennials (1977–1995) at 26%. Generation
X (1965–1976) and Baby Boomers (1946–1964) each represented 12% of the sample,
indicating a skew toward younger demographics.
The frequency of task performance revealed consistent gendered patterns. Regarding the
household budget, female participants most frequently selected values of 100%, 60%, and
40%, while male participants primarily chose 80% and 100%. For grocery shopping, women
predominantly reported values of 100% and 80%, whereas men mostly indicated 60% and
80%. In general household chores, women largely reported taking on 100% or 80% of the
workload, while men reported significantly lower contributions, most commonly selecting
40%. A similar trend was observed for meal preparation, with female respondents again
concentrated around 100% and 80%, and male respondents primarily at 40%.
Tasks such as childcare and pet care were frequently marked as not applicable, suggesting
that many participants did not have children or pets. However, among those who did,
women were more likely to report full or near-full responsibility for childcare, while men
were distributed between 20%, 40%, and 60%, with none selecting the highest categories. In
pet care, women again tended to report higher responsibility, typically 80% or 100%, while
men showed more variability, reporting levels of 20%, 60%, and 100%.
Gender disparities were also evident in traditionally male-associated tasks. For example,
car-related duties were overwhelmingly handled by men, with the majority selecting
100%, while women typically reported 20%. In waste disposal, women mostly selected
40% or 60%, while men most often indicated complete responsibility (100%).
When it came to satisfaction with their own tasks, nearly half of the respondents (22
individuals) rated their satisfaction at 4 out of 5 stars, with another 17 assigning the highest
rating of 5 stars. A similar trend was observed in evaluations of partners' contributions: 22
respondents awarded 5 stars, and 17 provided a 4-star rating.
Attitudes toward the current division of labour were nearly evenly split. Approximately 48%
of participants indicated a desire to change the distribution of tasks, while 52% were
satisfied with the existing arrangement. The most frequently cited tasks participants wished
to reduce their involvement in were household chores (18 responses), meal preparation (15
responses), and grocery shopping (9 responses). In turn, when asked whether they would
like their partners to take on a greater share of responsibilities, 46% responded
affirmatively, while 54% expressed contentment with the current situation. The tasks
participants most commonly wanted their partners to assume more frequently were
household chores (19 responses), meal preparation (15 responses), and grocery shopping
(12 responses).
These results highlight how crucial it is for partners to have constant and honest
communication about household responsibilities. The close alignment in satisfaction ratings
and the clear identification of areas for potential redistribution suggest that many couples
may benefit from structured conversations aimed at achieving a more equitable balance.
Facilitating adjustments based on individual preferences and capacities could enhance
relationship satisfaction and promote a more harmonious household dynamic.
The use of terms such as "always" and the percentage "100%" was intentional, aiming to
appeal to more analytically oriented readers by providing clear, quantifiable indicators
of frequency and consistency in task performance.

Discussion

The survey findings and the scholarly discussion on gender roles in heterosexual
relationships intersect in several important ways, particularly regarding domestic labour
division, gendered expectations, and relationship satisfaction. The discussion focuses on
gender as a fundamental frame for organizing social relations, functioning unreservedly
even in egalitarian contexts (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004) and as methods for establishing
and upholding stereotypes, which results in the continued use of traditional gender roles in
household work and the dynamic feeling of balance and harmony in heteronormative
relationships.
The broad literature emphasizes that despite legal and cultural shifts toward gender
equality, traditional gender roles in domestic labour persist, with women
disproportionately taking on caregiving and household responsibilities (Blackstone, 2003;
Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). This trend is clearly reflected in the survey data, where women
reported taking on a significantly higher proportion of household tasks, such as meal
preparation, grocery shopping, and general housekeeping. In Form 1, women indicated that
they most often performed 80% of household chores, a figure echoed in Form 2, where
women similarly reported taking on 100% or 80% of the household chores, with men
largely contributing much less. In fact, a significant number of women in both
questionnaires expressed dissatisfaction with the housework done by their partners and a
desire for them to undertake more domestic responsibilities.
Moreover, the gendered patterns observed in the survey align with the concept of “gender
display” (Brines, 1994), where women performing more household labour can be seen as a
response to maintaining traditional gender expectations, even in modern relationships. The
survey findings highlight how gendered divisions of work persist, as women frequently
report greater involvement in domestic chores, often taking full responsibility for tasks like
childcare and pet care, which were frequently marked as "not applicable" or barely
attended to by male respondents. This is supported by empirical research that reveals that
even when both partners work full-time, women consistently perform the majority of the
household duties (Bianchi et al., 2000; Carreiro, 2021). Part of the reason for this imbalance
lies in the fact that gender stereotypes in society are "sticky"—they don’t alter even when
structural opportunities improve (Cuddy, Wolf, Glick, Crotty, Chong, & Norton, 2015), as can
be seen while observing a variety of countries and the last few hundred years of history.
According to studies by Eagly and Steffen (1984), the division of labour shapes perceptions
of competence and desirability in both the home and the workplace by reinforcing
misconceptions that males are agentic and women are communal. It has been observed that
situations where partners in heterosexual partnerships try to take on unconventional
responsibilities frequently lead to conflict. To counteract the gender divergence, women
who earn more than their male partners, for instance, commonly participate in "gender
display" by doing more housework (Brines, 1994; Bertrand, Kamenica, & Pan, 2015),
which suggests that despite the economic reason, gender performance still occurs due to
"principles" and camouflaged sexist "values" implemented into one's personage by the
imaginary societal norms.
Scholarly research indicates that when traditional gender roles are violated—such as when
men earn less than their partners or take on more domestic responsibilities—it can create
tension, with men experiencing a threat to their masculinity (Vink et al., 2023; Bittman et
al., 2003). The issue, therefore, does not lie in women’s capabilities, but rather in the
constrained and reductive conceptualizations of masculinity that have produced rigid and
oftentimes toxic norms regarding what men should or should not do. In the survey, Form 1
respondents expressed moderate satisfaction with their own task distribution, with 54.17%
rating their satisfaction at 4 out of 5 stars. However, this satisfaction was coupled with a
clear desire to change the division of labour, as 50% of respondents wanted to adjust the
workload. Interestingly, satisfaction with partners' contributions was notably higher,
suggesting that even when traditional gender roles are challenged, partners may still value
and appreciate each other’s contributions. This aligns with the research by Moss-Racusin
(2010), which discusses the social penalties associated with violating gender stereotypes.
The survey’s findings, where both men and women reported a desire for more equitable
task-sharing, reflect an internal conflict between adhering to traditional gender norms and
seeking more balanced partnerships. Moreover, satisfaction with partners' contributions—
especially in Form 2, where 22 participants rated their partners highly—suggests that
gendered expectations, when balanced, may promote relationship stability. The distinction
between the two forms, therefore Western and Eastern European countries is subtle,
nonetheless, cannot be ignored. Female and male participants of Form 1 (mostly from the
United Kingdom) revealed their more progressive and feminist mentality by displaying an
almost proportional and more balanced division of household roles and responsibilities. This
can be supported by a survey from 2018 that revealed that 72% of UK respondents rejected
the traditional belief that a woman’s place is in the home, showing a clear shift toward
egalitarian perspectives (The Guardian, 2018). Form 2 (participants from Poland) presents
similar data, albeit within a distinct cultural context, where a willingness to grow and
broaden perspectives appears to coexist with deeply ingrained, intergenerationally
transmitted beliefs that continue to subtly shape participants’ perceptions and attitudes.
Polish men are among the least involved in domestic duties in the EU, according to research;
only 14.5% of them devote at least an hour a day to cooking and cleaning, compared to 24%
of all EU men (Sage Journals, 2021). Additionally, researchers have shown that Poland has
an elevated percentage of "egalitarian essentialism," which is the belief in gender equality in
principle with a commitment to traditional roles in practice, particularly when it comes to
homemaking (EIGE, 2018). This ideological combination is a special circumstance in which
gender roles in society are evolving more slowly than awareness, which could delay
significant behavioural changes. On the other hand, men can be excused only so long, and
especially, in the the age of social media and arguably simple access to it, the lack of
knowledge should not be put purely on society, but on the shoulders of (in particular)
heterosexual males.
The questionnaire clearly displayed the considerably more extensive and overwhelming
amount of work of female participants, while the most frequent and exclusive non-changing
variables done by the male participants were car maintenance and waste disposal, which
were predominantly handled by men. Women, in fact, regularly expressed opposition and
admitted the desire to obtain aid. However, it is extremely important to note that men not
only did not do that but were also simply not able to, as they barely ever undertook any
household labour activities.
The question of whether women ongoingly allow their male partners to enforce the
ordinance of labour division based on their own aspirations and preferences or are simply
"brainwashed" by the societal gender norm structure remains uncertain. This is particularly
true when considering the influence of external forces such as partner manipulation,
domestic violence, fear, lack of access to information, and the resulting inability to form a
personal opinion. In addition, the academic literature highlights the psychological toll of
conforming to traditional gender roles. For example, women who take on the majority of
domestic responsibilities may experience lower self-efficacy and limited agency (Rudman &
Glick, 2001). In the survey data, a significant number of female participants expressed
dissatisfaction with the disproportionate distribution of domestic labour tasks, especially
beyond household chores, such as meal preparation and grocery shopping. This confirms
the theory of a psychological burden on those who continue to conform to gendered
expectations, where women feel overwhelmed by their caregiving and domestic roles.
Similarly, men in the survey data were reported to be less involved in domestic duties, with
a clear gendered division of labour. While these tasks align with traditional masculine
roles, they additionally underscore how these societal expectations shape men's
contributions, often leading to an imbalance that affects relationship satisfaction. Men may
experience threats to their masculinity, leading to increased relationship strain (Vink et al.,
2023; Bittman et al., 2003). These role reversals challenge hegemonic masculinity norms,
which prescribe that men should be dominant and economically superior (Connell &
Messerschmidt, 2005).
The limited involvement of men in domestic duties can be partly understood through the
concept of weaponized incompetence. This term refers to the deliberate display of
incapacity by an individual as a strategy to evade responsibility or manipulate others into
performing tasks they are fully capable of completing themselves. In the context of
household labour, weaponized incompetence manifests when individuals pretend a lack of
ability or knowledge regarding domestic chores, thereby shifting the burden onto others,
which can be characterised as a markedly inconsiderate and ethically questionable
disrespectful pattern of behaviour. This behaviour allows individuals, often within
traditional gender roles, to avoid engaging in tasks they perceive as undesirable, reinforcing
the unequal distribution of domestic responsibilities (Stadnicka, 2019). This trend is further
supported by a survey conducted by the Policy Institute at King's College London, which
found that although women still undertake 57 minutes more unpaid labour per day than
men, only 4% of males in the UK now admit to avoiding housework, down from 24% in
1947 (The Times, 2024). This implies that although there has been progress, inequality still
exists in reality. The additional issue this research might face is the accuracy of the counted
percentage, as humans are prone to avoid the uncomfortable truth in order to maintain the
designed by them image of self.
Despite the persistence of traditional gender roles, both the scholarly literature and the
questionnaire data point toward evolving standards in the allocation of domestic
responsibilities. The survey revealed that while many respondents were satisfied with their
roles, a significant proportion desired change. In Form 1, 50% of respondents indicated a wish
to adjust the current distribution of tasks, and 52% of respondents in Form 2 expressed
a desire for change as well. This is consistent with the trend noted by Deutsch (2007) and
Wilkie et al. (1998), where relationships with more egalitarian task-sharing structures tend
to experience higher levels of satisfaction and intimacy. The survey findings also suggest
that when partners have open discussions about redistributing tasks, it can lead to more
harmonious relationships, as seen in respondents' desire for their partners to take on more
household responsibilities, particularly in areas like meal preparation and grocery shopping.
It appears that many interpersonal conflicts could be resolved through open
communication, were it not for the deeply internalized and socially constructed gender
roles that shape individuals' expectations and behaviours within relationships. With swift
access to various information via the Internet, the justification of not being aware of the
proposed by scholars solutions to improve satisfaction in the relationship should be
nonexistent, as it is the arrogance and laziness in the partner's behaviour creating the
undeniable issue.
According to long-term research, relationships tend to be better when both spouses accept
gender equality (Deutsch, 2007; Wilkie et al., 1998). Higher degrees of closeness,
communication, and shared decision-making are linked to progressive partnerships.
Asymmetrical expectations might worsen conflict; therefore, such results are dependent on
both partners having egalitarian views (Frisco & Williams, 2003) and understanding a correct
and clear description of the term "equality," and in various cases, additionally, equity.
Individual well-being and the flexibility of gender roles are related from a psychological
standpoint. According to Cuddy et al. (2015), a sign of psychological welfare is the capacity
to demonstrate both autonomy and cooperation, implying that strict role expectations are
both socially and psychologically limiting. Following, it has been studied that "men with
benevolent sexist attitudes tend to favour traditional female partners," whereas "women
generally prefer non-traditional partners" (Thompson, 2019), suggesting that an open
conversation without the willingness of the partner to remodel preferences influenced by
personal and commonly established gender notions may not result in improving relationship
dynamics and happiness. This may be related to the way that femininity is linked to life
pleasure in women who have a lot of social support, while masculinity is notably tied to life
satisfaction in men who have low self-esteem.
Historically, marriage acted as a primary means for women to achieve financial security
and a comfortable level of living during times when they were dependent on males. Due to
this dynamic, males were positioned as the only ones who would provide for their families
and were frequently excused from contributing to domestic labour. However, as women’s
liberation progressed and they won basic rights, they became more economically
independent. Numerous women began setting larger expectations in intimate relationships
as a result of the traditional male position as the primary provider becoming less essential.
Simultaneously, this change questioned traditional notions of masculinity, making some
men cling more tenaciously to restrictive and outdated gender norms, which are now
recognized to be intimately related to identity development and self-esteem (Mahalik,
Burns, and Syzdek, 2006).
Ironically, there are relational and psychological consequences related to traditional role
conformity. Traditional femininity is associated with passivity and low self-efficacy, as
demonstrated by Rudman and Glick (2001). These traits may restrict women’s ability to be
forceful in romantic or professional settings, as they are not taught to speak up or demand to
make their desires and needs be met. Similarly, there is a correlation between more
emotional suppression and worse mental health outcomes and men’s need to suppress
vulnerability in order to comply with masculine standards (Mahalik et al., 2003). This is
an incredibly toxic structure that tragically continues to circulate in most households, as
the survey and referenced studies present.
Moreover, these dynamics affect not only private relationships but also public perception.
Moss-Racusin et al. (2010) found that individuals who violate gender stereotypes are often
socially penalized, a phenomenon known as "backlash." In heterosexual couples, this can
translate into lower perceived compatibility or stability, especially when women adopt
agentic roles. Interestingly, role reversal also affects women’s own evaluations of their
relationships. Women may internalize cultural messages that discourage ambition or
assertiveness in romantic contexts, leading to ambivalence when they occupy positions of
dominance (Livingston & Judge, 2008). Hence, gender role deviations are not solely judged
externally, yet can create internal dissonance, undermining relationship satisfaction.
In accordance with the social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), ideologies that
justify inequality promote gender hierarchies. In heterosexual environments, these
hierarchies are manifested in relational expectations that most frequently favour men over
women, as well as a part of economic inequality and job discrimination. Heilman and
Okimoto (2007) discovered that successful women are seen as less appealing and
employable, particularly when they lack warmth, which cannot be said about their male
counterparts. It appears that a woman is required to continuously uphold a certain
standard, that was designed and then selected specifically for her. The remaining question
is why men are so afraid of successful women - might it be connected to the aspect of losing
dominance and power over them?
Relationship implications are significant: women who achieve professional success can be
subject to social stigmas that affect their personal relationships with those who see their
careers as a threat to their femininity. Similarly, men who provide care can be perceived as
defying gender expectations, which would reduce their social support in significant
numbers by their male companions (Milkie & Peltola, 1999).
Rules are changing in spite of these difficulties. Traditional patterns are gradually being
substituted by "breadwinner moms" (Pew Research Centre, 2013), and although a mother is
the sole or primary breadwinner in 40% of households with children under the age of 18,
public opinion remains divided, indicating a delayed adjustment period between structural
changes and cultural adaptation.
In terms of generational shifts, the survey's generational breakdown indicates that younger
demographics (Gen Z and Millennials) were the primary participants, with these generations
more likely to question and adapt traditional gender roles. This is consistent with the view that
younger individuals are more open to more equal and modernized relationships, which could
lead to long-term changes in the distribution of domestic labour (Pew Research Center, 2013),
and by extension, potentially increase relationship satisfaction. Theoretically, such
developments could correspond with a decline in divorce rates, although further longitudinal
research would be required to substantiate this possibility.
In summary, both the scholarly literature and the survey data reveal the persistence of
traditional gender norms in domestic labour divisions within heterosexual relationships.
While women continue to carry the majority of the household responsibilities, there is a
noticeable shift toward more egalitarian task-sharing, particularly among younger
generations. The desire for change expressed by many respondents, coupled with the
benefits of more balanced relationships, points to the potential for evolving gender roles in
the future. However, achieving this shift will require continued dialogue, societal support,
and the decoupling of gendered expectations from domestic responsibilities, as both
the scholarly research and survey findings suggest.