Gendered Division of Domestic Labour and Childbearing Intentions in Tehran, Iran
Objective: Changes in the gendered division of domestic labour are often assumed to influence childbearing intention, but existing evidence is varied and less examined in the Asian context. This paper aims to investigate the association between the gendered division of domestic labour and the intention to have another child.
Materials and methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Tehran on 455 married women aged 18-40 years who were selected through a multi-stage cluster sampling.
Results: Domestic labour is still a feminine role and the majority of women are satisfied with the division of domestic labour. Women’s satisfaction with the division of domestic labour is a predictor of their tendency to have another child, but the actual division of domestic labour has not a significant effect on women’s desire to childbearing, in the multivariate model.
Conclusion: Women’s desire for having another child is positively impacted by their satisfaction with the gendered division of labour in their household. To achieve more fertility, gender equality in the family and identifying the factors affecting women's satisfaction with the division of domestic labour is suggested.
2.Jackson S. Towards a historical sociology of housework: a materialist feminist analysis. Women's Studies International Forum 1992; 15: 153-72.
3.Buber I. The influence of the distributions of household and childrearing tasks between men and women on childbearing intentions in Austria. Max-Planck-Institute for Demographic Research. 2002.
4. Ghobadi k, Dehghani M, Mansour L, Abbasi M. Division of Household Labor, Perceived Justice (Fairness), and Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Family Research 2011; 7: 207- 22.
5. Erin Hye-Won K. Division of domestic labour and lowest-low fertility in South Korea. Demographic Research 2017; 37: 743-68.
6. Mills M, Begall K, Mencarini L, Tanturri M L, Letizia Tanturri M . Gender equity and fertility intentions in Italy and the Netherlands. Demographic research 2008; 18: 1-26.
7. McDonald P, Societal foundations for explaining fertility: Gender equity. Demographic research 2013; 28: 981-94.
8. Guetto R, Luijkx R, Scherer S. Religiosity, gender attitudes and women’s labour market participation and fertility decisions in Europe. Acta Sociologica 2015;
9. Dommermuth L, Hohmann-Marriott B, Lappegard T.Gender equality in the family and childbearing. Journal of Family Issues 2017; 38: 1803-24.
10. Westoff, C.F. and J.A. Higgins, Relationships Between Men’s Gender Attitudes and Fertility: Response to Puur, et al.’s “Men’s childbearing desires and views of the male role in Europe at the dawn of the 21st century”, Demographic Research 19: 1883–1912. Demogr Res 2009; 21: 10.4054.
11. Espenshade TJ. The price of children and socio-economic theories of fertility. Popul Stud (Camb) 1972; 26: 207-21.
12. Kaufman G, Do gender role attitudes matter? Family formation and dissolution among traditional and egalitarian men and women. Journal of Family Issues 2000; 21: 128-44.
13. Torr BM, Short SE. Second births and the second shift: A research note on gender equity and fertility. Population and development Review 2004; 30: 109-30.
14. Puur A, Oláh LS, Tazi-Preve M I, Dorbritz J. Men’s childbearing desires and views of the male role in Europe at the dawn of the 21st century. Demographic research 2008; 19: 1883-912.
15. Kitterød RH, Pettersen SV. Making up for mothers’ employed working hours? Housework and childcare among Norwegian fathers. Work, employment and society 2006; 20: 473-92.
16. Goldscheider F, Oláh LS, Puur A. Reconciling studies of men’s gender attitudes and fertility: Response to Westoff and Higgins. Demographic Research 2010; 22: 189-98.
17. Neyer G,Rieck D, Lappegård TL, Vignoli D,Muresan C. Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters? European Journal of Population 2013; 29: 245-72.
18. Modiri F, Mahdavi MS. Postmodern Family Values in Tehran. Journal of family research 2015; 11: 281-96.
19. Modiri F. Investigation of Factors Affecting on Married Lifestyle in Tehran City. Iranian Population Studies Journal 2017; 2: 133-62.
20. Labor force participation rate, female (% of female population ages 15+) (modeled ILO estimate) - Iran, Islamic Rep. International Labour Organization The Word Bank: June 15, 2021
21. Buber I. The influence of the distribution of household and childrearing tasks between men and women on childbearing intentions in Austria. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. MPIDR Working Papers WP-2002-004, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany. 2002.
22. Goldscheider F, Bernhardt E, Lappegård T. The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review 2015; 41: 207-39.
23. McDonald P. Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and development review 2006; 32: 485-510.
24. Bernhardt E, Goldscheider F. Domestic gender equality and childbearing: First and second births in Sweden. In: meetings of the European Association of Population Studies, Barcelona, Spain, 2008.
25. Kan M-Y, Hertog E. Domestic division of labour and fertility preference in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Demographic Research 2017; 36: 557-88.
26. Mencarini L, Tanturri ML. Exploring differences and similarities among women of different parities in Italy. In: 25th IUSSP International Population Conference, Tours, 2005.
27. Myrskylä M, Kohler HP, Billari FC. Advances in development reverse fertility declines. Nature 2009; 460: 741-3.
28. Miettinen A, Lainiala L, Rotkirch A. Women’s housework decreases fertility: Evidence from a longitudinal study among Finnish couples. Acta Sociologica 2015; 58: 139-54.
29. Craig L, Siminski P. If men do more housework, do their wives have more babies? Social Indicators Research 2011; 101: 255-8.
30. Abbasi-Shavazi MJ, Hosseini-Chavoshi M, Banihashemi F, Khosrvi A. Assessment of the own–children estimates of fertility applied to the 2011 Iran Census and the 2010 Iran-MIDHS. International Population Conference, Busan, Korea 2013.
31. Azadarmaki T. Families in Iran: The contemporary situation: Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2005.
32. Azad Armaki T, Saei M. Sociological explanation of
anomic sexual relationships in Iran. Journal of Family Research 2012; 74: 28.
33. Human Development Report 2020. The Next Frontier Human Development and the Anthropocene. United Nations Development Programme.
34. Huber S, Huber OW. The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions 2012; 3: 710-24.
35. Swim JK, Aikin KJ, Hall WS, Hunter BA. Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of personality and social psychology 1995; 68: 199-214.
36. Glick P, Fiske ST. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of personality and social psychology 1996; 70: 491-512.
37. Modiri F, Rahimi A. Sex preference and the Role of Gender Attitudes on its Shaping. Journal of Population Association of Iran 2016; 11: 9-41.
38. Gil-Alonso F. The Uneven Distribution of Family Responsibilities Between Women and Men and Its Link with Low Fertility: Some Evidence for European Union Countries from Eurobarometer Data: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Centre d'Estudis Demogràfics, 2004.
39. Tazi-Preve IM, Bichlbauer D, Goujon A. Gender trouble and its impact on fertility intentions. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research 2004; 40: 5-24.
40. Cooke LP. The gendered division of labor and family outcomes in Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family 2004; 66: 1246-59.
|Issue||Vol 15, No 4 (December 2021)|
|Gender Equity Domestic Labour Childbearing Intention Fertility Iran|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|