Sharing at Home: Takeaways from The Second Shift by Arlie Russell Hochschild

A discussion of Arlie Russel Hochschild’s The Second Shift: Working Families and the Revolution at Home, addressing how various working couples share the work at home. Also, some critiques, because I can’t help myself.

You can buy the book HERE.

SKIP TO: Key Takeaways

SKIP TO: Action Items for Parents

Working parents wondering how everyone else gets through the week.

What’s The Second Shift about?

The “second shift” refers to the housework and childcare responsibilities that a wife traditionally handled as her primary work, and which became a couple’s “second shift” once women joined the workforce. The second shift entails grocery shopping, preparing meals, maintaining the house (cleaning, furnishing, repairs), caring for pets, caring for children, etc.

In The Second Shift, Hochschild examines how ten couples, each comprised of two working spouses, conceptualize and divide up this domestic work.

Initial Concerns

Honestly, I did not expect to like this book. In my experience, these conversations tend to villainize men for not stepping up. This concern was partly borne out in that the author clearly has some frustration with the male population. For example, Hochschild begins The Second Shift by pointing out how men have much more leisure time than their wives. She describes how some women wait on their husbands to restore their fragile egos. She notes that based on several studies from the 1960s and 1970s, women worked approximately 15 extra hours per week than men after pooling paid work, housework, and childcare. This amounts to an extra month of work per year.[1] Hochschild goes on to describe how, although working mothers may have higher self esteem, they are also more anxious, tired, and get sick more frequently.

(Note: For a specific discussion of the second shift’s impact on women’s careers, particularly after having children, see my discussion of Claudia Goldin’s book, Career and Family.)

I struggled with writing this post, because I did have some major disagreements with Hochschild’s world view. There were times where I felt the focus was too heavily on the wife’s subjective feelings and thoughts, whereas husband’s perspective did not receive adequate attention. I’ll note some of those areas below. I also came away with the opinion that Hochschild doesn’t really know how to treat time spent caring for children. She acknowledges its importance but seems to see it fundamentally as a burden.

How Other Families Do It

That said, on the whole, The Second Shift was an interesting discussion. It was a window into other households across the United States. (Spoiler: Everyone is stressed out and just trying to get by. People just let different things slip.) What works for some, what doesn’t work, what compromises people are making, how they feel about those compromises, the long term impacts on the marriage, etc.

Here are three action items based on my takeaways from The Second Shift:

1. Actively Involve Dad in Childcare;
2. Consider How You Talk About Domestic Work; and
3. Be Aware of How Adult Economic Incentives May Interplay with Raising Kids.

Hochschild points out that, in practice, many mothers are primarily responsible for day-to-day decisions relevant to their children. Many women solely manage naptimes, mealtimes, what to feed the child, what to send to school, bathing schedules, etc. When she observed parents together, Hochschild would often see husbands asking their wives about the schedule and deferring to their wives’ decisions regarding the children. She found that when a father participated in childcare, it was more typically as a helper than as a primary parent.

(This primary parenting role is the issue that set off one mom on a controversial rant on TikTok. She apparently felt disrespected for the expectation that she would manage everything in her home to the point of considering divorce – although her husband was typically helpful in doing the tasks she asked him to do.)

Hochschild advocates for men getting more involved.

Primary Parenting

I think this recommendation has necessary limits. In my experience, it is probably more efficient to have one point person when managing anything, children included. You probably don’t want every point of the multitude of daily childrearing decisions to be open questions. You probably don’t want different answers depending on which spouse happens to take point that day. Even if you divvied up different aspects of the child’s life, someone needs to coordinate the big picture and the unexpected issues that come up out of the blue. For the sake of consistency for the child and for the sake of efficiency for the parents, it may just make sense to have a single point person.

So, at least in my opinion, one parent (mom or dad) is probably not truly getting away from the “primary” parenting role.

Increased Involvement

But that doesn’t mean parents can’t try to divide the work more evenly. Hochschild makes the case that both children and mothers benefit from having dad actively participating and making decisions about his children. Children with more involved fathers may be better emotionally adjusted and demonstrate better academic performance. And, if fathers pitch in more for childcare, mothers may feel less stressed and more supported.

One thing that surprised me was that Hochschild says she observed women shutting out their husbands from a primary caregiver relationship with the children. She does not delve deep into the question of why. So I’ll just suggest that mom should consider carefully what she wants. Does she truly want to take a step back from the primary parenting role to let the father be more involved? Maybe these moms are shutting their husbands out because they deeply value that primary relationship.

Assuming mom wants dad to be more involved, Hochschild suggests actively considering ways to involve the father. Mom should make it clear she wants him to take on an expanded role, for instance by making him a part of decisions that impact the children and encouraging him take kids out solo. The case studies suggest that some husbands can feel uncomfortable here and need encouragement from their wives. This is a more expansive role than traditional fathers played, which means that many men will not be able to look to their own fathers as role models.

A common theme among couples Hochschild interviewed was that women leaned toward an egalitarian philosophy: couples should share housework equally. Men, on the other hand, leaned toward a transitional philosophy: it was great for the wife to work, but she should be primarily responsible for running the home.

Apparently, egalitarian-leaning women love to give their domestically unhelpful husbands lists, or to suggest taking turns doing different tasks around the house. Apparently, and shockingly (har har), transitional men hate this approach. One of the ironic trends that emerged from Hochschild’s case studies was that many traditional men (who believe women should identify with the home, while men should focus on breadwinning) actually did more work around the house than transitional men.

Hochschild delves into a detailed discussion of various gender strategies in how couples interrelate. Practically, it basically boils down to the following principle. Men fight being told that they should do something because it’s their fair share more than they fight being asked for help (whether because the wife is tired, sick, or simply not as good at a particular task). Take what you will from this?

Not that you asked . . .

Here’s my personal, practical spin from The Second Shift. Hochschild unfortunately doesn’t advocate a sales pitch for how to get men to help out more (other than the academic arguments that it is fair and probably in a child’s best interest). I don’t think she really has one in mind. This is unfortunate, given how a sales pitch is pretty critical to changing things up for working women.

I’ve started to think the problem is that we treat most domestic work as something that literally anyone could do it if the price and the quality of work is right. (More on how I got here from my reading of The Second Shift below). If there’s no special value in the husband doing the task himself, he may see the task purely as the wife just passing off work she doesn’t want to do herself.

But if the domestic work felt valuable and meaningful to the family specifically because dad was doing it? I wonder if this is what is happening when women ask their traditional husbands for help. These husbands are willing to do the work because they feel it is valuable and meaningful for them specifically to help their wives. Issue here is that most women hate having to ask for help.

The Value Problem

This value and meaning problem goes well beyond the issue of manipulating husbands to pitch in for housework. When it comes to childcare and making a house feel like home, I think there’s a broad perception issue. We are encouraged by the feminist movement today to see many household tasks not as the core “stuff” that makes life meaningful, but rather as emblems of oppression. These are the tasks that hold women back from competing with men in the workforce as equals. A criticism I discuss below is that I worry Hochschild counterproductively perpetuates this view.

In recent years, the dialogue surrounding domestic life has been dominated by a movement pushing for women to reach economic parity with men in the workforce at all costs. Economic parity certainly is a worthy goal, but it’s not the only worthy goal. One of Hochschild’s observations is that the cost of both partners vying to be as economically productive as possible is often a reduced home life. Neither partner wants to be responsible for the domestic work.

Hochschild seems to think the path forward is for men to take on more responsibility for the drudgery at home as a matter of duty. I don’t think this is going to happen. It’s a terrible sales pitch!

Instead, I think both spouses need to take a step back and consciously reclaim the intrinsic value and desirability of handling certain (not all!) domestic responsibilities themselves. The only way I can think to make this change is by thinking about which tasks are valuable, and then changing how we talk about these tasks. We need to make a point to acknowledge their value.

Changing the Dialogue

In other words, I think it may be helpful to find certain “chores” that are special duties that matter to family life specifically because a particular parent does them. They’re not just chores that need to get done by anyone. For instance, making dinner (at least some nights) as a means of showing love. Taking time to feed the children dinner as a time to teach them about food and to learn about their likes and dislikes. Taking the kids on a grocery shopping excursion to talk and bond (our kids love going to the grocery store), etc. And making sure both partners take time to notice and appreciate this work specifically because the other person is doing it. These things contribute to a happy home.

No husband or wife is going to want to take time off work to do chores if they think doing so makes them look oppressed to the rest of the world. But if they’re taking time to do something recognized (at least in one’s home) as valuable, desirable, rewarding, and affirming, I think that’s an entirely different matter. I don’t see any way to make this change in one’s home (let alone our broader culture) other than by being mindful of the way we talk about the subject.

Hochschild raises some concerns about whether our ideas today about what a child needs may reflect what the parents need more than what the child needs. Similar to how a “supermom” archetype minimizes the real needs of women, she says there has emerged a “superkid” archetype that minimizes the real needs of kids, encouraging parents to treat them as if they were older. She writes, “The child’s needs are a cultural football in an economic and marital game.” [1.1]

I don’t know how accurate this criticism is, but I really appreciated this part of the book. Even if our culture isn’t broadly underestimating the needs of children, I think Hochschild certainly has hit upon incentive structures that we don’t talk about much. I think it’s because it’s sort of culturally gone out of fashion. It can feel like a critique of working women to suggest that kids may not be getting enough attention – even if the takeaway should be that in some cases both parents need to re-prioritize and re-dignify home life.

Let’s touch on the two primary incentive structures below.

What Babies Want

Today, both women and men are struggling to compete in the economy. Men aren’t pitching in equally at home, whatever the reason. So a dynamic has emerged where women struggle to keep up at work, having been told they can do it all, and somewhat begrudgingly manage the house – knowing that every moment spent on domestic duties puts them another step behind at work.

At the same time, there is a proliferation of articles describing how children need independence and “quality time,” not “quantity time,” with parents. [1.2] Women are encouraged to “lean in” at work, to burn the candle at both ends.

Ours is a situation ripe for motivated reasoning regarding the needs of children. I think it is worthwhile to keep this motivation in mind when thinking about how we personally evaluate a given child’s needs and when evaluating parenting trends and even research about kids.

It’s Not Just About Time

Once again, here I go outside of the four corners of Hochschild’s book, but I thought this was an important point to address. When I read this part of The Second Shift, I saw an apparent tension between two trends: the potential minimization of children’s needs and the reported increase in quality time that parents now spend with their children. But here’s why these concepts are not truly at odds.

Reason 1: Many parents are overextended. When emotionally or cognitively elsewhere (answering work emails, managing stress, or simply exhausted from juggling everything), parents may be physically present but less emotionally available or patient.

Reason 2: Working parents face the pressure to be productive workers and great parents. In trying to meet these dual demands, parents can exert subtle pressure on their children to self-regulate, manage independently, and avoid emotional displays that are disruptive or time-consuming.

Reason 3: The effort to be great parents often translates into attempts to maximize time with kids and optimize developmental outcomes. This is reflected in changed parenting styles. Previous generations embraced what sociologist Annette Lareau calls “natural growth” parenting, which centered around unstructured free play, neighborhood autonomy, and the expectation that children develop according to their own timetables.[1.3] Today, however, many parents adopt a strategy of concerted cultivation: structured activities and adult-managed interactions aimed at preparing children for academic and social success.

In other words, we have moved away from a child-centric model, where adults set boundaries but otherwise expect children to behave like children, toward a model that sees childhood fundamentally as preparation for adulthood. This approach prioritizes compliance, achievement, and smooth routines. Today’s parents may enjoy more “quality” time with their children, but this time is often centered on structured, goal-oriented interactions: doing homework, practicing instruments, or attending organized activities. Missing are the open-ended, emotionally attuned interactions that create space for a child’s deeper or unspoken needs and for exploring their own curiosities, passions, and sense of self.

(For more thoughts on the flaws with the concerted cultivation approach and achievement culture in general, see my discussion of Never Enough.)

Childcare

Hochschild also points out that parents who work often have a strong desire to believe their children are thriving at childcare. They deeply want or even need to believe they are doing what is best for their children. Simultaneously, childcare providers have strong incentives not to overshare negative information, because they are economically dependent on children remaining in the childcare situation.[1.4]

This creates a meaningful communication gap between the caregiver, who often spends the most time with a child and holds critical information about the child’s mental state and wellbeing – and the parent who is ultimately responsible for that child. No one has ever raised this dynamics to me as something to watch or adjust for, even if it’s obvious once you think about it. Parents should be mindful of this communication gap. It should inform what questions parents ask, how they check in on their children, and generally how they manage childcare. I personally wish I had heard this earlier, so I’m pointing it out.

Here are my primary takeaways from The Second Shift:

1. The Broader Social Context;
2. The Economic Power Imbalance;
3. How Three Philosophies Impact Marital Dynamics; and
4. The Benefits of Increasing Dad’s Involvement with Kids.

Hochschild begins her book by reviewing the history leading up to the social context in which couples now find themselves. It’s important to start here because it’s not front of mind for many of us today, but it is relevant.

Pre-Industrial Era

In the United States before 1830, most couples lived on farms, growing crops and producing goods for consumption at home (not for sale).[3] Women and men both worked around the home, and they both could loosely monitor children while they did so. Land ownership was highly relevant to determining a person’s social status.

The Industrial Revolution

Beginning in the 1830s, the Industrial Revolution changed this model. Men began leaving farms to work industrial jobs, often traveling from home to a factory and then back. Eventually, they relocated their families to cites to live near the factories. They began to associate manhood and power with earnings, and land ownership lost its place as the predominant power metric. [4]

After families moved to cities, women stayed home. Homelife was significantly different in the city, as women couldn’t perform the same work that they had on farms. They transitioned to buying their food and clothes in stores, rather than making them at home. A “cult of true womanhood” emerged. It embraced the belief that women are uniquely suited to a role in home and family. [5] Hochschild suggests that a woman’s power became based in her attractiveness and influence over children and family.

Overall, the changes during this period forced men to specialize in commercial work and bringing home money to the family, while women specialized in running the home and raising children.

Women Enter the Workforce

When large numbers of women joined the paid workforce – and remained there, primarily beginning in the 1970s, the paradigm shifted again.[4.1] Women began embracing the new male understanding of manhood and power: earning capacity. As women began working, they, like men, began to base their identities and sense of power on their earnings.

But there was a problem: there was still work to do at home. Some technological advances had simplified the work (dishwashers, washing machines, prepared foods, etc.), but there was no accompanying broader social adaptation to help women offset their remaining domestic obligations. Someone still had to put dishes into the dishwasher, put the clothes in the laundry, go to the grocery store, attend to children, etc. Workplaces remained inflexible to needs at home. Many men continued to embrace the limited fathering role that had been the norm during the Industrial Revolution when women bore primary responsibility for the domestic sphere.

Hochschild calls the failure of much to change in terms of demands on women in the home the “stalled revolution.” In other words, women joined the male workforce, and they began to set their value by how well they performed in that workforce versus men. But they did so from unequal footing, because they still had to manage the home.

Unfortunately, as long as women remained uniquely tied to domestic work, they could never achieve the same earning capacity as men. This has been a major source of resentment, as women struggle to juggle both work and home.

To manage the domestic work of the second shift, Hochschild discusses three primary strategies women use.

First, encourage a husband to share the load equally. Women face a number of difficulties with this approach, as discussed further below.

Second, replace as much work as possible with commercially available alternatives. Pick up pre-cooked meals at the grocery store or restaurant rather than cooking at home. Employ housekeepers or nannies or daycares to pick up housework and childcare, to the extent economically feasible. [6]

Third, minimize the remaining domestic work that cannot be outsourced. How often do the children really need baths or clean laundry? Does a messy house need to be cleaned each day?

Why is sharing such a problem?

As noted above, women have met with mixed success in encouraging their husbands to share the domestic workload. Women’s lives are markedly different from their mothers’ and grandmothers’ lives, a fact which has forced them to make changes.[7] Hochschild says men’s perspectives are changing more slowly than women’s because they have no similar pressures. The primary pressure on men is coming from their wives. But women cannot push too hard, because economically women need marriage more than men. Most women won’t risk divorce for fear of making their situation even worse.[8]

Hochschild’s Power Imbalance Theory

As long as women are primarily responsible for the work at home, they are handicapped at work. Most working women have less flexibility and time than men who are supported by wives who are willing to take on most or all of this domestic work.[9] Practically, this means that the husband’s income is often very important to the family as a unit.

Following divorce, Hochschild says that the family loses out on the husband’s earnings and on any help he may have provided at home. (This includes using his earnings for purchasing additional domestic support).

Hochschild points out that more than half of men do not pay court ordered child support regularly.[10] Some do not pay at all. Additionally, after divorce, women typically handle most, if not all, of the childcare. Many fathers have limited contact with their children following divorce, and certainly less contact than before. [11] As a result, she says that the divorced woman’s paid work suffers. She has less help at home and decreased income to help offset home demands. This makes her less capable of competing in the workplace. The woman and her children often fall down the class ladder following divorce as a result.[12]

Hochschild says women may be free from overbearing husbands today due to more liberal divorce laws. But the setup for women outside of marriage is so oppressive that it reduces the power of women inside of marriage. Many women would rather acquiesce to an unfair marriage than face an even more unfair situation outside of it.

Hochschild identifies three primary marital philosophies that she claims currently predominate in the US:

(1) Traditional: The woman should be responsible for and identify with the domestic sphere. The husband should be responsible for and identify with his paid work. Hochschild says these couples want the wife to have less power than the husband.[13]

(2) Egalitarian: The spouses should jointly identify with paid work and domestic work (some couples orient more to career, others more to family. The key is that the couple shares the same orientation). Hochschild says these couples want equal power.

(3) Transitional: The woman should identify with home and with paid work, and the husband should base his identity more on work than home. Hochschild says this covered most of the couples she interviewed.

These three philosophies shape how couples approach the second shift. They set out whose basic responsibility it is to manage the shift. Hochschild points out that many couples have mismatched philosophies, with wives leaning more egalitarian. The mismatch can cause significant marital tensions and miscommunications. Below is a brief overview of some of Hochschild’s case studies.

Traditional Pairings

Frank & Carmen embrace a traditional philosophy. Carmen does not want to work and disapproves of women trying to find an identity through work, but she needs to work for the supplemental income. She enjoys her paid work. Her husband is the breadwinner and the couple views his work as his primary responsibility, but he also helps Carmen out at home. This is partly to make up for the fact that Carmen needs to work. The couple also believes that Frank helps out because Carmen needs the help. They both believe Frank is better at certain tasks (cooking rice, paying bills, etc.) Frank is willing to help with the housework, but the couple sees it as him helping Carmen – not handling a joint responsibility.

Transitional Pairings

Peter & Nina

Nina earns more than Peter.[14] The couple hides this from friends and family. Peter is supportive of Nina’s work, but he does not take responsibility for childcare or housework. This forces Nina to take steps back at work when their daughter has behavioral problems. Nina’s workplace continuously attempts to draw her back in with higher offers, and she clearly desires to advance. Peter supports Nina in handling the situation with their daughter – but he sees this as fundamentally Nina’s job in which he will only play a supporting role. Nina sees her handling of the work at home as a means of compensating her husband for her higher salary.

Hochschild says Nina’s higher earnings threatened Peter’s identity. He could not further endanger that identity by taking on domestic responsibilities.[15] Hochschild writes, “Of the men who earned more [than their wives], 21 percent shared housework. Of the men who earned about the same, 30 percent shared. But among men who earned less than their wives, none shared.”[16]

Greg & Carol

Greg wants Carol to work, feeling upset when she moved to part time.[17] Although Greg is an involved parent, he does not act like the “primary parent.” For instance, he sometimes forgets to feed their son meals (giving him snacks instead), forcing Carol to stay closely involved. He leaves the majority of daily chores to Carol unless she specifically asks him to do something – but he is willing to do the chores she asks of him. The pressure on Carol to take the primary role in managing daily chores and childcare is what ultimately forces her to reduce hours and involvement at work.

Hochschild describes how Carol’s transitional philosophy changed over time. At first, she had always identified with her paid work. Carol explains how she felt bad about herself when she left the house after the baby was born – she didn’t want to be identified as just a “dumb housewife.” She had harshly judged housewives, wondering why they were wasting their lives. But over time, she explains that her identity shifted – she began to identify with housewives and realized aspects of her job were superficial, whereas her family would be with her in the long run. Eventually Carol chose to move to part time work and no longer felt that she even needed to have a job. Unlike his wife, Greg’s philosophy did not shift, and he did not feel his life had been changed much by having a child.

Egalitarian Women

Another pairing Hochschild observed was a transitional man paired with an egalitarian woman. In these couples, the egalitarian wife would expect that because both spouses work, the husband would share housework and childcare duties equally, as a joint responsibility. Unfortunately, the transitional husband is happy for his wife to work and to find an identity there, but he also expects her to identify with, and do the majority of the work at, home.[18] These couples appeared to have relationships riddled with miscommunication.

Evan & Nancy

In one example, Nancy (the egalitarian) initially pressured Evan (the transitional) to share cooking, cleaning, and childcare. She was afraid of becoming a “doormat” like her mother. When he didn’t share, Nancy attempted to divide up dinner duty by designating nights where Evan was responsible for dinner. Evan routinely forgot. He adopted a “strategy of incompetence” which forced Nancy to take over. This caused a lot of marital tension. Eventually, Nancy backed down. Hochschild says she feared divorce more than Evan did.

To cope, Hochschild describes how Nancy developed a narrative that she and Evan did share housework. Hochschild says this was a distortion, given Evan’s role was severely limited. He cared for the dog, the car, and the garage area. Nancy took care of everything else in the house, from grocery shopping to the cooking and cleanup to their child. The narrative took work for Nancy to develop and maintain, but it enabled her to believe that she and Evan shared housework and that she was no “doormat.”

Hochschild says, however, that Nancy’s resentment lingered. She saw it manifested in Nancy’s exhaustion and in the way she handled her son’s sleeping troubles – bringing him into her bed in a way that prevented intimacy with her husband.

Seth & Jessica

Seth (the transitional) focused on his legal career and worked such long hours that his similarly ambitious lawyer wife Jessica (more egalitarian) was forced to manage the home.[19] Jessica wanted Seth to appreciate her work at home and her sacrifice in pulling back at work in order to do so. Seth did not see this as a sacrifice, because he thought a less-intensive job would be nice. Seth wanted Jessica to appreciate his sacrifice of working hard to provide financial support, and to understand that the cost of his hard work was his spending less time at home. However, Jessica did not see his working late as a sacrifice. She wanted Seth to participate more at home. Neither recognized the other’s contributions or sacrifices.

Although Jessica managed the second shift, Hochschild notes that her heart did not appear to be in it. She coped by distancing herself from the family. To help her with home duties while she worked, Jessica hired a full staff of housekeepers, nannies, drivers, gardeners, “dad-type” helpers for the kids, etc. She found ways to nurture herself outside of the home, with friends, shopping, etc., while others managed the children, who missed their dad. Eventually, the couple divorced.

Overflow Effects

After reading about all of these couples, one thing that stood out to me was how (aside from the traditional couples) very few women seemed to want to identify with the domestic sphere, even if they eventually came around to it. Many women saw domestic tasks and an identity as a mom or wife as holding them back from fully engaging with a career. At the same time, many husbands fought taking on domestic responsibility.

Hochschild suggests that a critical part of fixing the economic power imbalance between men and women is for fathers to be more directly involved in childcare. This is not only better for women, but also for children. Anecdotally, she found that the children whose dads were actively involved appeared to be less anxious and more secure according to their babysitters and daycare workers.[26]

Spotty Research

Hochschild says that the influence of fathers has not been as well-researched as the influence of mothers. Some research is available. For instance, Dr. Norma Radin at University of Michigan has shown that children of “highly involved” fathers tend to be better adjusted socially and emotionally and perform better academically, all else being equal.[27] Highly involved fathers were those who scored in the top third for taking responsibility for a child’s physical care, socializing the child, being available, making decisions regarding the child, and general involvement. Sons in particular were more likely to be well adjusted, socially competent, to see themselves as masters of their fate, and to have higher verbal intelligence scores.[28]

Another study suggested that when fathers worked long hours, the children exhibited higher levels of anxiety, were less warm, and were less task oriented – despite having fewer behavioral problems.[29] Interestingly, when fathers worked long hours, mothers tended to compensate with warmer relationships with their sons – but when mothers worked long hours, fathers did not compensate similarly. [30]

Expanding the Conversation

This suggests that when we think about what is best for kids, we need to expand the classic discussion that revolves around the availability of mothers. Today’s conversation should include the costs and benefits of mom’s and dad’s availability. Parenting styles often differ between mom and dad – and children can benefit uniquely from each style. Expanding this conversation is especially important when we’re thinking about next steps forward for working women.

Two Related Points of Disagreement

First, Hochschild focuses too much on the implications of lopsided earnings between men and women. She says men assess the status of other men based on earnings. But I don’t see that this requires women to compete with their husbands similarly in order to be equals in marriage. There are other forms of power. Stated differently, I do not agree that any woman who accepts an economic imbalance with her husband must acquiesce to having less power in the marriage.[28.1]

Second, because she is so focused on the economic power dynamic, Hochschild does not place sufficient value on childcare and other domestic work. She does acknowledge that children may need more attention, and she suggests fathers should get more involved as a solution. But I worry that she risks marginalizing the important role mothers specifically may want to play at home. This is a disservice to women who identify with the home, especially if those women are also ambitious at work. There does not appear to be a place for women who want to spend more time as mothers but who also want equal power (regardless of the economics) with their husbands in the marriage. Or who are ambitious.

The implication of Hochschild’s framework is that the partner doing more domestic work, including childcare, must be the lesser, subservient partner. But many mothers feel a deep, instinctual desire to be more closely involved with their kids lives than some dads do in my experience. Taken to its natural conclusion, Hochschild’s equality framework would require a liberated woman to limit how much time she spends with her children according to the time the husband is willing to give the children. This is the only way they can be equals. What kind of dystopian equality would that be?

Let’s walk through my objections in more depth.

#1 – Isolating Economic Power Dynamics

Throughout The Second Shift, Hochschild takes a fairly crude view of the marital relationship by isolating the economic power dynamics at play. For instance, she says women are more afraid of divorce than men, so they agree to do housework because the additional work is a better outcome than divorce. She writes about how traditional couples want the wife to have less power. And she writes that, “More crucial than cultural beliefs about men’s and women’s spheres, were couples’ beliefs about the right degree of men’s and women’s power. Women who ‘balanced’ felt ‘too powerful.’ Sensing when their husbands got touchy, sensing the fragility of their husbands’ ego, not wanting them to get discouraged or depressed, such women restored their men’s lost power by waiting on them at home.”

I had mentioned above that there are some areas where I don’t think Hochschild tries hard enough to see the husband’s perspective. This is one of those areas. I think she overlooks that many men in fact love their wives and want to support them. They aren’t trying to dominate their wives or fluff their own egos by making the power move of not doing the dishes. There may be other dynamics involved, or something more at stake for these men when they refuse (or “forget”) to pitch in for housework. So I want to consider a couple of other dynamics.

Rational Economic Actors

One theory Hochschild does not touch is the economic one proposed by Claudia Goldin, discussed here. This theory essentially holds that women and men are rational actors, and they choose to have one spouse on-call at work and one spouse on-call at home in order to maximize income for the family. Most high-earning jobs disproportionately reward long and unpredictable hours, leading both men and women to buy into this setup, even if it is less than ideal.

Practically speaking, this means that women often take on more work at home in order to free up the husband to take the higher-paying job. This is supported in the fact that a wage gap in similar men and women tends to remain quite small until after a woman has children.

The Economics of Domestic Work

I noticed in Hochschild’s case studies that many couples view domestic work from a primarily economic perspective. In other words, they see it as a service that can be purchased. Once couples agree that it’s okay to outsource housework, they have conceded that there is little (if any) intrinsic value in doing this domestic work themselves.

Hochschild writes, “As motherhood as a ‘private enterprise’ declines and more mothers rely on the work of lower-paid specialists, the value accorded the work of mothering has declined for women, making it all the harder for men to take it up.”[33.1]

Once you see it as a primarily economic activity, then it makes sense to manage housework and childcare according to what is most economically efficient. In other words, housework and childcare should be outsourced if the price is reasonable, or, if too pricey to outsource, should be performed by the lower-paid earner. The higher earner should invest his free time back into either the higher-paid job or recharging to ensure good performance on the more valuable job. This is economically efficient for the family unit.

Maximizing Economic Efficiency

Under this model, if a lower-earning wife asks the higher-earning husband for help, she is arguably asking him to do work that is economically inefficient for the family unit. It may be more economically efficient for the lower-paid partner to cut back at work rather than bringing in the higher-earner to do work that may impact his job performance.

If the higher-paid earner does pitch in, he is likely to see this as work done to help the lower paid earner. A favor – not something done because it is fair or best for the family. Hochschild describes this dynamic in several couples: the husband feels his wife should just cut back at work if the domestic work is too much.[32] He does not feel he should do the domestic work himself.

This same principal might apply to any couple agreeing that the husband is primarily responsible for earning money for the family, even if he happens to earn less at the moment. The theory would be that even if he is not currently the higher-earner, he is the “provider” or primary earner and should be investing his energy there because his long-term income is critical to the family unit.

The Male Identity Component

Hochschild also talks about how male identity and status became tied up in paid work and earnings following the Industrial Revolution. However, she does not spend much time discussing how women’s entry into the workforce may have threatened the traditional male provider identity and put pressure on marital lanes.

Identity in the Family

Hochschild says men have historically identified as the family provider and have always competed with other men. But now that his wife is competing in the marketplace for paid work too, is he still the provider? Richard Reeves, in Of Boys and Men, writes about how many men have felt a loss of identity and purpose as their traditional role as provider has eroded. Many of these men are left struggling to redefine their value.

In Hochschild’s quote above, about how women wait on their husbands to restore their lost sense of power, is it possible that this is not about the woman being subservient, but about the woman confirming to her husband that she does see him as a provider? Basically, validating his identity? If this is the case, it would suggest that man’s sense of identity as a provider may somehow depend on his identifying his wife with the domestic sphere, as someone there to receive and acknowledge what he has provided. It’s sort of like – if a tree falls and no one hears it, did it fall? If a man provides for his wife, but she wasn’t home to notice, is he a provider?

Identity with Other Men

Beyond the marital unit, a husband may also be evaluating his status among other men. If his wife expects him to share domestic duties or manage the home, he may worry this will impact his earning capacity or diminish how he compares with male peers. If his wife isn’t ironing his shirts and cooking his dinners, he might interpret this as a lack of support, especially compared with men whose wives do take on those roles. (I’m not endorsing wifely shirt-ironing duties, by the way!)

Hochschild describes how many wives tend to compare their lots with other women, and husbands tend to compare their lots with other men. So regardless of what is fair between husband and wife, each will also be looking to counterparts in other relationships to evaluate what is fair or unfair and which partner may be getting a better deal out of the relationship.

This type of comparison could potentially lead a husband to pressure his wife to handle more domestic work – not necessarily out of a desire to dominate her, but to avoid a sense of embarrassment, inadequacy, or diminished status among other men.

The Female Identity Component

A compounding issue may be the husband’s perception of female identity and fulfillment. Hochschild notes that some men view their wives’ reduced participation in the workforce as a gift: an opportunity for their partner to work less. In several marriages she describes, husbands expect their wives to value this arrangement.[33] Some women value it from the outset, some learn to value it, and some do not value it and deeply resent being pushed into the position of having to step back from work.

When women ask their husbands to split domestic work, perhaps some men may perceive it – like Seth, discussed above, not as a plea for fairness, but as a failure to recognize the “gift” they believe they are offering by working so hard.

(Of course, this assumption often reflects a lack of understanding about how many women experience work. For some of us, especially those with an overly competitive streak, working part time may feel like practicing for a marathon you’re never allowed to race. Why on earth would you keep showing up for practice with those who are allowed to race?! There is no more frustrating feeling! Unless you’re well-paid for your trouble or doing it so that you can race again in the future. But for many women, part-time work is not relaxing, or identity-affirming. It’s the drag of being stuck in a perpetual training cycle, and no gift at all.)

Why Go Through This Exercise?

I am not endorsing the views above, but I do think it’s important to acknowledge some of the deeper dynamics that may make men and women resistant to sharing the second shift. If the problem is simply that men love power, there’s not much room for productive conversation. But if the division of labor reflects economic reasoning or is tied to identity and social positioning, these factors we can address.

As noted above, I personally believe that a central issue is that neither spouse sees much intrinsic value in doing domestic work themselves. Instead, they tend to view it as an economic efficiency problem (i.e., it’s a service that can be purchased, and thus should fall to the lower-earning spouse if not contracted out entirely). Domestic work is also commonly seen as a barrier to advancement. Men may see it as undercutting their footing in competing with other men. Women may see it as undercutting their ability to compete with men and to maintain equal power in the marriage with their husbands.

If marital power is defined by earnings, then a spouse who chooses to do anything other than maximizing earnings loses power in the marriage. But the risk of using this narrow lens to evaluate marital power is that it can encourage couples to undervalue the importance of the sort of domestic work that contributes to a family life (certain types of domestic work, at least). Do we need to open the floor to values other than economic equality when thinking through marital dynamics?

#2 – The Ironic Cost of Undervaluing Domestic Work

I also mentioned that I think Hochschild does not place sufficient value on domestic work. As an example of the costs of devaluing domestic work, I want to discuss one couple from Hochschild’s case studies that struck a chord with me.

Ann & Robert

Ann had a highly paid job as the vice president of a large company. Her husband was enthusiastic and proud of her success at work.

Ann also had two children. She didn’t feel comfortable admitting to anyone at work how her children affected her life. For instance, she felt she could not tell colleagues when a child was sick. She felt she’d lose credibility with her male colleagues. Ann heavily relied on a babysitter who worked 11-hour days. When Ann would come home from work, she was so exhausted she didn’t initiate much talk, just responded to her daughter’s requests (and there were more and more of these bids for connection as the night went on).

Ann eventually quit her job because she didn’t like what was going on at home.[34] She told her colleagues it was because she was moving – not because she wanted to stay home with her children.

Ann found her husband Robert very helpful at home, although he traveled frequently. He was content with a very simple home life, whereas she wanted meals and a “homey” home for their family. Despite Ann’s view that Robert was very helpful, Hochschild says Ann actually handled most of the work. She wanted to relieve Robert of most of the work by doing it herself. But at times she would get frustrated that he didn’t share more of the duties at home. Later, she would chastise herself for these feelings.

Hochschild’s Analysis

Hochschild asks, “Why did Ann feel [. . .] that her husband’s job – and really his life – came first . . . Ann had all along been groomed to be the highly successful career woman she had become, and her belief in male superiority didn’t fit so neatly into her circumstances . . . .”[35] When asked, Ann responded that her husband was more intelligent and that her work felt unreal to her – while home felt real and meaningful. [36] Hochschild writes further “Ann’s sense that Robert’s mind and work were more meaningful than hers led her to do the second shift while she worked full time, and eventually led her to quit.”

She ends the chapter with this haunting quote from Ann: “It’s really sad that I have two girls. They’re going to be pulled into the same world I’ve coped with. They’re going to have to care about what I’ve had to care about. They’ll never have a chance to really make a contribution to anything unless they fight against the odds all the time. . . They might be able to succeed if they shut out the idea of having children and family. But then they would miss something. Society would react negatively to them. But if they do have children, they can’t manage to do it all and not be torn.”[37]

Ann’s Conflict

Ann describes the conflict many mothers share, between work and motherhood. But I think Hochschild overemphasizes the power dynamic in Ann’s marriage. Ann’s conflict isn’t truly about whose life is more important.

Hochschild misses what Ann herself says motivated her to leave work: the deep desire to be present and create a real home for her children. Hochschild notes that Ann moved a great deal as a child and wanted to give her daughters the stability she had lacked. She even observes how Ann “guarded her sense of a real home, real meals, almost the way an ethnic group in danger of assimilating to the dominant culture protects a language or cuisine in danger of disappearing.”[39]

The conflict I see is that Ann’s fantastic career with a bright future left no space for her to be the type of mother she wanted to be. She felt she had to choose between her career and her family. She did not think that Robert had the same obligation – and he did not appear to feel the same pull.

Ann chose the part of her life that was most real and important to her. She says her paid work felt meaningless by comparison, and so she left it behind. I think a lot of women feel this sense of comparative purposelessness at work, particularly after having children. Ann talks about “fooling people” that she took her work seriously, because she didn’t find her work meaningful.[38]

Losing Face & The Cost of Silence

One of the most painful aspects of Ann’s story is not that she left her job – it’s that she felt she couldn’t talk about why. Domestic desires are often treated as confessions of weakness, not valid aspirations. That silence makes it nearly impossible for women to find a middle path. Instead of taking a break, or taking a step back – Ann simply dropped out of the workforce.

For some women, making a request for reduced or flexible hours can feel like admitting you’re not as intense or committed as people thought. You often have to take on a role with less responsibility and status. Especially when you’re still working with the same people you always have, there’s a deep fear they may look down on your for the decision to step back from work. How do you handle the loss in status and potentially respect? Maybe it’s better to disappear from the job market altogether, like Ann did.

Hochschild treats Ann’s decision to take point in caring for her family as if it somehow made her into a submissive woman who placed a higher value on her husband’s time than her own. It’s hard to imagine the woman willing to admit that she needs time at home to raise kids, knowing her colleagues will interpret this as a proclamation of subserviency to her husband and an admission that she does not regard her own time as valuable? Who can blame Ann for not addressing this issue at work head on if this is the likely response?

The Cultural Trap

I worry that this need for many women to hide the importance of domestic work in their lives, almost as if it is shameful, prevents some ambitious, motivated women from admitting to the problem. But having an open conversation is a necessity to finding real solutions. Until it’s acceptable to talk about it, some women will either just drop out of the workforce entirely or suppress a desire to devote more time at home, rather than risk losing the hard-won respect of their colleagues. Only a handful of women may be lucky enough to find jobs that are rewarding and flexible enough to support the kind of hands-on parenting they may desire.

I don’t know what the answer is to this core conflict many women feel. Especially because some intense jobs truly are not compatible with being a closely-involved parent. I don’t think the solution is to tell women that they can’t take time to prioritize the desire to be a very present mom without becoming subservient to their husbands. These women shouldn’t feel that their only option is to step back from their jobs quietly and without explanation, in order to avoid judgment. And this certainly shouldn’t stand in the way of their getting back into the workforce once they’re in a position to re-prioritize work.

And of course, it must be noted that not all women will feel the same urge to be closely involved. They may truly prefer to continue their careers full-throttle. There’s no one right model—but there’s something broken in a culture where only one model is associated with success.

Valuing the Right Work

Okay, assuming you agree with the above – and that we need a better way to talk about ambition and motherhood, and the comparative value of those contributions. Practically what is anyone supposed to do about it? Not exactly a problem to solve in one blog post.

I think that one practical step forward would be to be more mindful about how we talk about domestic work, especially around one’s family. (Thus, the recommendation in action items.) Childcare isn’t a chore equivalent to laundry. Cooking dinner for the family isn’t the same as doing the dishes. Some domestic tasks are thankless, interchangeable, and tedious. But some of them are valuable purely because of who is doing the task and how that creates a steady, welcoming home environment.

No one respects jobs that entail replaceable, relatively low-value work. They want to do things that are important, limited, enviable, precious, and special. 

We hear a lot about the grind of parenting. And it is a grind. But we talk far less about the things that make it worthwhile: the rituals, the joys, and the satisfaction of family life. The investment in the next generation and our future. These things are hard to describe, even harder to quantify, and easy to dismiss. They feel so basic in some ways that they shouldn’t need to be said. They are also incredibly important. But I wonder if, right now, we need to be reminded, or maybe reassured?

Power Pause by Neha Ruch (who founded Mother Untitled).

I’m personally struggling to understand how a woman might be ambitious, with an identity associated with her work, but also want to be there with her children during a particular period of life. Hochschild seems to treat women who want to take on a disproportionate amount of domestic work as succumbing to male dominance, but I disagree.

The Power Pause was written as a guide for working women who have children and choose to put their careers on hold for a bit – how to leave, how to stay in the loop, and how to get back in. It does not take the position that these women are putting their husbands first – just that they want to embrace this unique time in motherhood as fully as possible. I thought it was a great, encouraging, and practical read.

Of Boys and Men – Richard Reeves

This book focuses on how the recent transformation of the job market, including the entry of women into the labor market, has created a number of challenges for men. In particular, many men struggle with a sense of identity and purpose, having lost a clear place in the workforce and in family life. The book discusses the challenges particular to men, and how in many ways they are falling behind women today.

The Nanny Time Bomb – Jacalyn S. Burke

I have not yet read this book. And apparently this book is somewhat alarmist. I’m including it because I talk about how parents should be more aware of the incentives of childcare providers and how they can conflict with the parent’s long term goals for the child. This book was written by a former nanny and describes ways the incentives specifically of nannies can be misaligned from those of parents. For instance, nannies are incentivized to ensure the household runs smoothly and to ensure that the parents are happy – but this may come at the expense of long-term discipline, values, or other developmental goals.

Yes! Such a good read, even if it did frustrate me at times. Strong recommend. Lots of insights into my own thinking. The history of how we got here makes it easier to understand how men and women might perceive their roles differently from one another and run into conflicts. And some common gaps for miscommunication.

---

Endnotes

[1] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 3). Penguin.

[1.1] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 226). Penguin.

[1.2] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 226). Penguin.

[1.3] Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.

[1.4] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 226). Penguin.

[2] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 226). Penguin.

[3] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 235). Penguin.

[4] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 237). Penguin.

[4.1] Although large numbers of women joined the workforce during World War II, they did not remain part of the work force after men came home. The sustained surge of women joining the workforce primarily dates from the 1970s.

[5] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 237). Penguin. See also for a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Domesticity. In 1860, only 15 percent of women worked for pay. Those who did work worked as domestic servants. (see page Hochschild & Machung (2012), The Second Shift, p. 236).

[6] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 237). Penguin.

[7] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 11). Penguin.

[8] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 244). Penguin.

[9] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 248). Penguin. According to Hochschild’s research, the higher up a person tended to be in a job, the more home support they typically had. Hochschild writes that men and women may “come to work looking the same. Yet one is ‘poorer’ in backstage support than the other. One irons a spouse’s uniform, fixes a lunch, washes clothes . . . . The other has a uniform ironed, a lunch fixed, clothes washed . . . .”

[10] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-tps03.html

[11] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 244). Penguin.

[12] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 244). Penguin.

[13] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 15). Penguin.

[14] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 77). Penguin.

[15] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 218). Penguin.

[16] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 217). Penguin.

[17] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 144). Penguin.

[18] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 15). Penguin.

[19] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 125). Penguin.

[20] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 243). Penguin.

[21] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 231). Penguin.

[22] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 226). Penguin.

[23] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 225-6). Penguin. This whole quality/quantity of time issue I discussed in “Rethinking Achievement Culture.” In that post, I discussed the author’s interview with an expert on the rise in intensive parenting, who has found that quantity doesn’t matter as much as quality of time. I discussed my concerns with this research.

[24] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 228). Penguin.

[25] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 229). Penguin.

[26] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 231). Penguin.

[27] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 232). Penguin.

[28] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 232). Penguin.

[28.1] I don’t get into it in this post, but Hochschild does discuss how the rise of divorce has played an important role in this area. She writes specifically that, “as divorce has spread, more and more uncertain women are led to seem married but to ponder work and family in unmarried ways.” Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 141). Penguin.

I think the gist of this issue is that where divorce is a likely outcome, partners must protect their economic security as much as possible. There is a raw power imbalance if one partner has a much better economic hand, is willing to divorce the spouse, and both partners know he will clearly be better off after a divorce. In a situation where divorce is a common outcome, wives cannot invest time in marriage and family without significant personal economic risks, for them and their children. That said, where partners are very committed to staying together, an economic power imbalance should hold much less sway. In this scenario, the economic power imbalance does not necessarily translate into a raw power imbalance. And again, there are forms of power other than economic – such as power over the family legacy.

[29] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 232). Penguin.

[30] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 233). Penguin.

[31] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 162). Penguin.

[32] This is most clear in Nancy and Evan Holt (Hochschild & Machung (2012), The Second Shift, p. 42). It also comes up with Seth and Jessica (Hochschild & Machung (2012), The Second Shift, p. 118).

[33] Seth and Jessica (Hochschild & Machung (2012), The Second Shift, p. 118). Frank and Carmen (Hochschild & Machung (2012), The Second Shift, p. 66).

[33.1] Seth and Jessica (Hochschild & Machung (2012), The Second Shift, p. 118). Frank and Carmen (Hochschild & Machung (2012), The Second Shift, p. 227).

[34] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 98). Penguin.

[35] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 106). Penguin.

[36] 107Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 244). Penguin.

[37] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 109). Penguin.

[38] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 1-7). Penguin.

[39] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 101). Penguin.

[40] https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2008/04/25/mens-changing-contribution-to-housework-and-childcare-brief-report/.

[41] https://thegepi.org/reports/GEPI-Free-Time-Gender-Gap-Report.pdf.

[42] Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (eBook ed., p. 122). Penguin.

---