This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 4 (1991), pp. 420-439 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/623028 . Accessed: 08/05/2011 22:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com.
Blackwell Publishing and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.
in Lecturer Geography, London Schoolof Economics, London WC2A 2AE1 of Department Geography, Revised MS received June1991 25
ABSTRACT Thepaper basicinformation thegeography genderdivisions labour Britain. of in on of menhavea fairly Although provides uniform role in therearesubstantial variations the degreeto whichwomenare Britain, 'breadwinning' throughout spatial in work.Thesevariations domestic interact various paid ways engagedin full-time work,part-time workandfull-time paid is and with indicesof household'conventionality' women'ssocialstatus.Thisgeographyof genderdivisionsof labour a
less familiargeography than those based on local economic or class relations. For instance west central London resembles industrialLancashireor central Scotland, Bristol is rather like the north east, and outer Surrey, Kent and Sussex resemble
rural of in Walesor Fenland. paperrelatesthesespatial The differences a discussion genderdivisionsof labour general, to of and anddiscusses for It therecouldbe a geography patriarchy, attempts possiblereasons thisvariation. alsoaskswhether the of definedstatistics, some initialinvestigation this question. of Noting the severelimitations aggregateandspatially recommends moresociallysensitive, research theseissues. on in-depth paper KEY WORDS: Gender roles,Divisionsof labour, Britain, Patriarchy.
AIMS: FAMILIAR AND UNFAMILIAR GEOGRAPHIES The point of this articleis to present some basic information on the geography of gender divisions of labour in Britain.Geographicaldescriptions of labour market conditions, housing characteristics, voting behaviour, health levels and so on are of course quite common in the literature.These are usually taken as class related phenomena linked to the performance of local economies and we are well furnished with (sometimes misleading) spatial shorthands to summarise these geographies - the north/south divide, rural/urban,inner-city/suburbs are examples. Geographical descriptions of gender roles are less common, although previous research points to significant spatial variations (e.g. Hodgson, 1984; McDowell and Massey, 1984; Mark-Lawson et al., 1985; Walby, 1985; Bowlby et al., 1986; Townsend, 1986; Bagguley and Walby, 1989). However, most of this work focusses on paid work and is often empirically limited to particularcase studies. In contrast I attempt here to provide more geographically comprehensive information. This task also demands some commentary on
Trans.Inst. Br. Geogr.N.S. 16: 420-439 (1991) ISSN: 0020-2754
gender roles in Britain and the social relations of patriarchythat lie behind them. I also attempt to point towards possible research on the processes of this differentiation.Are there variationsin how patriarchy works and the effects it has within Britain?Certainly my mapping exercise suggests that this might be the case. For our pre-existing spatial shorthandsrelating to social class and local economic fortunes seem quite misleading. In terms of the gender division of labour, London (excluding the eastern and suburbs)is ratherlike industrialLancashire central Scotland. Bristol and Southampton resemble south Wales or the north east of England, while the outer commuting belt in Surrey and Sussex is not much different from remote ruralareas in Fenland or midWales. However, before elaborating this less familiar geography I will spend some time in considering the limitations involved in reducing spatially variant social relations to statisticalgeography. LIMITATIONS: SCOPE, DEPTH AND PROCESS There are three sorts of limitation to the work presented here. The first is the general problem of
Printed in Great Britain
Maybe they are available but childcare is not. but a study such as this can only speculate about their relative importancein differentareas. in the National Curriculum) that geography should be more about facts and maps! GENDER DIVISIONS OF LABOUR In 1981 nearly 78 per cent of adult males in Britain were 'economically active' compared to only 45-6 per cent of women (Table I).g. conversely they may lack self-esteem.domestic workers are not counted as economically active in the British census. Of course there are spatial patterns in social phenomena. permanently sick 67-2 1-8 8. full-time. sexuality. this basic geographical information has not been presented before.And yet another consequence of focussing on gender roles is the tendency to present a geography of women rather than of women vis-a-vismen. etc). paid employment. So as well as suffering from spatial superficiality the paper proceeds with a good dose of historical amnesia.5 78-3 21-7 25-9 16-3 3-4 45. The literature suggests all these explanations. normally collected in order to find information on gender roles. seeking work Total 'economically active' Housewives and independent means Total 'working people' Retired. On the other hand. partly as a consequence of this. male violence at home. the information presented provides a means of choosing case study areas for research on the processes by which gender roles are created-and geographical variations in this .lack of domestic support. women are not so commonly involved in full-time work. in the workplace or while journeying to work.many of which previous patriarchial work suggests vary spatially within Britain. This figure refers to people in. First of all. However. The patterns described need explaining and more sensitive process-orientated work on gender relations in particularareas is a way to do this. and is one way of stimulating research questions of the sort enumerated above. but although inadequate in themselves these proxies perform well enough as indicators of relativevariation. different social processes can lead to the same spatial outcome while the ecological fallacy prevents any simple projection from aggregate patterns to social behaviour. Hence the paper can say little about internal household and workplace relations. Some of these assumptions have to be relatively heroic. to infer social relations on this basis. for example.6 40-6 86-2 13-8 Total 100-0 100-0 Source: 1981 Census.Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain 421 representing social relations through spatial patterns. Put together this means that I have had to make various proxy assumptions. It is relatively easy to map areas where. ideology. as we will see. These can be important enough in themselves and also point the way to furtherwork. a now outdated snapshot of a historically unfolding process.Nor was the relatively limited informationwhich does exist in the census. Given all these limitations. still less abut male violence. but men don't let them take such jobs .based on comparative similarities and differences. Maybe 'womens' jobs' are not available. Secondly. or the social security system may make these jobs economically irrational. there are limitations of scope in this paper. Maybe they want these jobs.again in any number of ways (job discrimination. The paper is also largely restricted to the 1981 census. . then what is the value of this paper? I believe it is twofold. Secondly. And maybe this sort of work also dovetails nicely with current demands (e. The census information I use deals almost entirely with workplace labour categories and households as units. these sources do unconsciously assume a particular male-orientated and traditionalform of gender relations. and more. Quite apart from the technical problems of spatial representationusing variable spatial data units which themselves aggregate information.but unpaid . and they are available. etc). state behaviour and all those other elements forming social systems . students. Maybe women don't want those jobs for any number of reasons (they gain self-respect and economic power by other means. Finally. but we cannot say much about why this is. Despite their economic and social importance. What is the reason for these variations?But it is not appropriate. and the other statistical sources used. if we add to the economically active total those people classifiedby the census as 'other economically TABLE Gender divisions labour: I. Britain 1981 of over %ofadults 16 Men Women In full-time employment In part-time employment Temporary sick.8 77-8 0. or seeking. the paper focusses on gender roles (what men and women do) ratherthan the gender relations that cause them (how men and women interactsocially).
1983. The figures for men were very similar to 1981 although part-time work had approximately doubled to nearly 4 per cent. Given the disrepancy between the two figures. Indeed. 1987). Witherspoon. For this unpaid domestic labour is also pre-eminently women's work. accounting for another 16 per cent. 1985. almost double the female 'economically active' census figure. both directly and indirectlyin influencingother areasof life such as access to paid work.it too leaves the vast bulk of this work to be undertakenby domestic workers who are unpaid in the sense of a formal wage or labour exchange. 246) where: Thegreatmajority married of womenmustbe regarded as occupiedon work which is vital enough though withoutwhichtheirhusbands couldnot do their unpaid. nor do they play more than a very minor role in bringing up childrenor caring for the infirm. or seeking. The census does not record 'househusbands'. and in terms of power over income disposal or household decision making. full-time paid work. Domestic work.Although the British state is vitally concernedwith such matters . Domestic work is accorded low status (with the exception of those few jobs mostly carried out by men) and is badly rewarded in monetary terms. of course. tried to remedy what he later called 'the defensive appreciation of the housewife as an unpaid worker' (Beveridge. far from protecting women in fact places them in a relatively resource poor position and often constitutes a major cause of their poverty and (Brannen Wilson. 1981) this gender division alters dramatically.a mere 1-8 per cent of men were in part-timepaid work compared to over 16 per cent of women. This applies to housework. paid work and without which the nation could not continue 1942. 1987.2Similarly 76 per cent of men were in.many 'housewives' also end up doing large amounts of unpaid work in support of their spouse's jobs (Finch.Some without access to the labourof wives or mothers must even look after themselves. and the care of elderly and infirm persons alike.is partly defined by this gendered relationshipto domestic work. both quantitatively and qualitatively. Nonetheless. 1988. There have of course been some important developments since 1981. Even more striking. Only 11 per cent of single parentfamilieswere headed by fathersin 1989. Men. there has in fact been little aggregate change in the overall gender distributionsshown in Table I. 1984. 1989). the homemaker role. For capitalist markets do not in themselves produce and maintain socialised workers and consumers. Quantitatively. Deem. p. in contrast. Still less do they take responsibility for planning or executing this work. But for men there is only the slightest increase to just over 78 per cent.or are thought to be able to do . Morris. This is why William Beveridge.1983). Glendinning andMiller. 1947. Table I also shows that a major part of the labour carried out in capitalist societies is domestic work undertakenoutside formallabourmarkets. Ashford. we can safely assume that the vast majority of these women were in the 'housewife' category. Farming is just one obvious example (Little. 1986.are solely responsible for the care of children and other dependents.1987). surveys show that the vast bulk of such work is performed by women (Gershunny. And this division is a division of gender. 1987). 50. All this accords well with survey evidence which .p.which in turn is made up of the subcategories 'housewives' and 'persons of independent means' (OPCS. childcare. is also crucialin defining social roles. Only rarely do men take on domestic work for others or care for dependents. This is because 8-8 million women were counted as 'other economically active' comparedto a mere 99 000 men. This new category. The division of domestic labour will therefore play a key role in determiningpeople's life quality and experience. These figures clearly show a markeddivergence in the work experience of men and women. In addition part-time work for women. for example. Similarly. which we label 'working people' now incorporates 85 per cent of adult women. is almost always subsidiary to and designed to fit around domestic responsibilities (Martin and Roberts. in particular the number of mothers in paid employment with dependent children has increased from 51 per cent to 59 per cent in 1989.the very stuff of social policy legislation . in access to household resources like leisure time or the 'family' car. do undertakesuch work from time to time and may even predominatein some 'masculine'specialised tasks like tending cars or mending household appliances. see Land.422 SIMON DUNCAN inactive'. andhence women's work. compared to little more than 26 per cent of women. In 1989 little over 51 per cent of women were 'economically active'. an increase split almost equally between fulltime and part-time work.Almost 41 per cent of women were classified as 'housewives'. What sort of paid work men and women are able to do . 1976) (Beveridge. Many single women. in his 1942 reportwhich effectively set the guidelines for the post-war welfare state in Britain.
and the 'time-trap'of arranging child care or wanted a partnership. centre arounda female-malecouple living in the same Secondly. In others. the opposite effect clear that men and women differon what the content occurs. however.men wanted a traditionalwife care for other dependents often prevents women (Mansfieldand Collard. is there any role reversal (Morris. while women equally dominate in house. However.they are increasingly excludedfrom paid work. there is an increasing and enduring. Hence people are not only allocated diversity in household types. 1989. they are usually also allocated to men's only made up 26 per cent of households-single jobs and women's jobs in gender terms.although it is also themselves. in the early 1980s 63 per cent of women in paid jobs 1990). well as benefit changes which have strengthened however. It is normally only does not extend to these women. Gender divisions might be obvious on this and relations interact with divisions in the formal scale .work for others and men may have to look after maker mother (Ashford. 1987).mechanismsof occupational wrong. while for the male for gender divisions of labour. the employment 1984). for example. Only rarely. generation of geographical work has shown (arising But this spatiality would hardly be significant on a from Massey. The much lauded 'feminisation'of paid work only 2 per cent of single men. But these capitalist divisions of local or regional scale.gardens. By 1989 the 'traditional' 'unskilled'. as income disposal and decision making. The cant changes begin to occur to these traditionalmale same is likely to be true for women caring for elderly breadwinnerand female homemaker roles.gender roles dwelling.occupational groups in various areas. for a number of interlinkingreasons. The poverty trap of state benefits versus paid of this relationship should be. Even those women with full-time paid work economically irrational. 1989). For instance only 17 cent of dual partnerhouseholds in Britainin 1983 the per cent of single mothers were in full-time paid wife was either a full-timehousewife or combined this employment in 1988-the lowest rate in the EC work with part-timepaid work (Martin and Roberts. These figures have considerable implications worked only with other women. however. 1989). as a whole work and childcare carried out inside the dwelling. This may well reflect the increasing on more household tasks. In some of these non. For single women. withdrawal of public services and an increasing while women often gain a greater say in household 'community'care workload undertakenby women. 35 per cent were in full-time of single mothers has almost halved since the middomestic work or employed part time. Indeed one survey found that there was no cohabiting dual sex couple at all (OPCS. The former probably largely reflects housing market conditions and the latter WHY SHOULD GENDER ROLES VARY differentialeconomic and migration trends.The divisions labour Britain in 423 of of geography gender shows an overwhelming expectation in Britainfor an couple households women will be freed of domestic ideal household of breadwinner father and home. but households. sex-typing and segregation seem remarkably rigid Firstof all. So in inner why should we expect these divisions to have any London. quite the reverse when women enter full-time paid work that signifi. 'professional' jobs and so on in household of cohabiting dual sex couple and children class terms.This segregaperson households accounted for almost as much (25 tion is both hierarchialor 'vertical'segregation in the per cent) while single-parent families accounted for same occupation and functional or 'horizontal' 17 per cent. 1987). The point here.cohabitees of these women in the survey a full 81 per .both Halfpenny. And indeed for 68 per from taking paid employment. it might be contained a dual sex couple. in modem Britain households normally in Buckinghamshire. 'skilled'.men dominate in exteral domestic work labour market. Even more startling. Whereas women work. Formal work functions are spatially concerned with cars.although LOCALLY? different 'cultures'. sheds and the dwelling separated leading to different concentrations of exterior. 1990). compared to 1970s. only 37 per cent of households geographical expression? After all. for instance ideas and expecThe gender divisions of labour discussed in the last tations about gender roles and hence the nature of section are clearly of great social significance. it is well known that the distributionof household types varies significantly over space . including some childcare. (Cohen. locally and regionally. various poverty traps and made taking on more paid Pahl. 1984). and most obvious. Men take or sick adults. will also be implicated. as has been well researched. compared to 60 per cent supposed. In as many as 40 per cent of households between occupations. this supposition is labourare also gendered. is that in geographical jobs married to unemployed husbands still end up doing most of the household work (Laite and terms.
Rather. The varying nature of public transport systems will be yet another factor. that this is not simply a matter of access to paid work. 1990). It is of course almost axiomatic that women's assigned responsibility for caring for children and other dependents severely constrains their uptake of paid work. Cohen. MarkLawson. In other words. For example it is now well established that different modes of household finance management . sexual harassment)can confirmand develop preexisting gender roles. however. Certainly those regions with higher provision rates also show higher rates of women in full-time employment. in the same conditions. which militates against women taking up paid employment (Morris. however.424 SIMON DUNCAN cent worked only with men (Martin and Roberts. Franklin. 1986). for women. 1952). spatial divisions of paid labour also mean a spatialpatterning in both the amount and type of male and female paid employment. the effects of paid work are most researched. with a similarpercentage citing the same reason for theirup take of part-timejobs (Martin and Roberts. Occupational sex-typing. the custom of the wife taking control of household wages and allocating spending money to the husbandhas been most common (Zweig. 1986).the more power in the household and in local social groups like political parties (Pahl. Variationin the provision of public services for the old and infirm will have similareffects. 1984. will be spatially variant as they develop in the contexts of workplaces. 1989) is by and large nationally invariant. household and community histories will lead to the emergence of local cultures which in turn encourage particularways of handling household finance. compared to just 2 per cent nationally and rates of below 1 per cent in Wales and the south west. For just one illustration rates of occupational segregation have been shown to vary substantiallybetween differentlabour markets (Walby and Bagguley. Bowlby et al.with different consequences for male and female power . As a general rule the more money a woman earns independently in the labourmarket. and in the balance between the two (cf. Cohen. Variations in the availability and nature of paid work and the provision of public services will in this way affect gender divisions of labour in a geographically significant way. homes and local social networks (cf. Yet the provision of childcare services. It is also in such areaswhere 'jointmarriages'(where the couple associate together in the same social network) developed earliest and most completely (Gittins. 1984.women's social position relative to men is more a question of what work women do in relationto what men do (McDowell and Massey. 79). 1988). 1982. 1989). These determinants obviously vary according to local labourmarketconditions. is scandously low in Britain compared to the rest of Europe (Moss. 1990). Clearly. The importance of this variation on women's access to paid employment will be significant.So in areaslike industrial with a long history of full-timepaid work Lancashire. The benefit system. 1989). State policy can be considered in a similarway. perhaps reflecting different 'levels of patriarchalhegemony' in different places (ibid.Segregation rates in the same industryalso differ on a local scale. 1985. Regionally Scotland and inner London have day nursery places for around 10 per cent of the under-fives. Walby. 1990). Again. that differentialroles are seriously questioned (see Mark-Lawsonet al. Studies show.how they each experience and use their social environments. Such variations will then interact with gender relations in the home. It is perhaps only when men and women do the same sort of work.. In the early 1980s fully 56 per cent of nonworking women cited childcareas their reason for not taking paid work. In addition. Nonetheless. we might also expect that particularlocal industrial.g. 1990). The position is more involved than this however. Bowlby. And it is also here that women have had higher access to and influenceon the 'public' spheres of trade unionism and politics traditionally reserved for men (Mark-Lawson. p. 1984). These constructions will then influence the roles men and women take up . but is not researched (cf. both public and private.1988).1988). Nor is this variation purely a matter of local industrial mixes reflectingnationalrates of sex segregation in different industries. This is unlikely to be the case..are strongly linked to different levels of household income and occupational status (Morris.. Some local authorities have no places at all while a few pioneers have up to 20 per cent provision. For instance. 1988. for individual relations between men and women and indeed constructions of feminity and masculinity. there are significant variations around this low average.1989). But other state interventions are strongly patterned in a geographical sense. 1985). given women's more constrained mobility (Pickup. Mark-Lawsonet al. gendered hierarchiesand gender mechanisms of subordination (e. . for the same pay. the scope for geographical variation in these interlinkages is substantial. Because gender experiences in paid work have been most researched there is a tendency to accord this prime place in the construction of gender relations.
What is almost unknown.e. As Bowlby et al. and with relatively uniform rates between 80 per cent and 90 per cent. it is in fact an extension of their process of production. 1988). in state intervention. There is those women domestic tasks are more flexible and obviously significant variation between areas and negotiable. The significance of this map is that it is full-time paid work that best markswomen's distance from the THE GEOGRAPHY OF GENDER DIVISIONS 'homemaker' role.in divisions labour Britain The geography gender of of 425 much of the socialisation of children into particular gender expectations is centred on the home. Similarly. The same can be said for the role of local social networks. these topics are almost completely unresearched in terms of local variations . Rogers.we would expect FIGURE1. In others she will be part of an alternative culture focussed around single motherhood. effectively recording is accounted for by part-time employment. This takes place through such processes as physical and emotional caring. in the construction of gender identities . . 1989. the evidence also shows that for domestic work) at the District Council level.even though their spatiality is likely to be crucial. group childcare. Britainas a whole. in rates for women since the 1950s may not be as signifieast Sussex. This is not to Full-time work say that women employed full-time escape the paid Figure I maps the numberof women in full-time paid responsibility for domestic work. those shows that role reversalor even equality is rareeven in with or seeking paid jobs and those with full-time this group. As Townsend (1986) has pointed out. 1981 some considerable variation in gender roles on local Source:1981 Census and regional scales. the local area is not just a 'setting' for the development of gender relations. However. Oakley. A similar map for men should show cant as it first appears. The very the household and in wider social situations (see prehighest rate in 1981 was 51 per cent for the London vious section). all the evidence work as a percentage of working women (i. and in the next section we will describe some of these variations for unemployment variations. Working women in full-time employment. part-time paid work normally OF LABOUR IN BRITAIN supplements or even reinforcesthis role. Valentine. although it seems clear that this will be important. as is the development and maintenance of adult gender identities. or in the tenacity with which men police women's participation in social and leisure venues (cf. where they possess more influenceboth in around the national average of 30 per cent. in gender divisions of paid labour.. however.for most of this convergence comparatively little variation. compared to the well-known convergence of regional employment the very lowest rate of just 19 per cent for Rother. 1989 for a review). is how these processes vary in particularlocal culturaland physical contexts. sexuality and domestic violence (see Walby. Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. (1986) state. In some areas a new mother will enter a community of married mothers positioned in a particularrole of childrearingand domestic labour vis-avis their 'breadwinning'husbands (cf. Again. Because of all these interlinking reasons . the benefit system and paid work. 1974).areaswill differ in the degree to which women perceive it safe to travel alone.the spatial variability in household types. This certainly seems to be the case using aggregate census figures.
Indeed. Cooke. Swansea. with systematically worse increments. rather than current labour market specificity as much recent 'locality research' has tended to assume (cf. Nottinghamshire/ south Yorkshireand north east England show almost uniformly low rates. 1989). This is in some contrast to the more newly industrialisedareas to the north and west of London .although clearly my speculations here demand more detailed research. The highest rates of all are found in west inner London. Wheelock. But whether and how women take these opportunities for full-time work. ideas of macho men in traditionalhouseholds . the Welsh borders and south west England show almost uniformly low rates for women in full-time paid work. Industrial Lancashireand central Scotland also emerge as high rate regions.and even traditionalcoal-mining or heavy metal areas in central Scotland show relatively high rates comparedto apparentlysimilarareas in Englandand Wales. PART-TIME PAID WORK Part-time paid work is less conceptually interesting for my purposes here. like Hull. community and workplace. (Although it must be remembered that local labour markets differ in scale and nature for different occupational groups and are already sex-typed consequent to the operation of gender relations at work. 1984). it appearsthat wife rapeis almost twice as common in Glasgow than in English cities (Painter. this variation reflects social histories and cultures at a regional scale. On a regional scale high rates are found in London and contiguous areasof the 'western crescent'including some outliers in new or expanding towns like Crawley. 1980.that show higher rates. Interestingly.although even here note lower rates in some commuting areas. Finally.All these areas have long histories of women in full-time work.g. Newmarket. then. Fenland and the east Midlands stretching up to north-east England and non-industrial northern England. Durham.The new towns and expanding suburbs around Glasgow join the very highest group. Cardiff. Scotland as a whole recordscomparativelyhigh rates. There are urban/ruraland local scale differences. Plymouth. It is remarkablehow in these areas quite large towns and cities do little to disturb such low rates. while regional cities like Aberdeen or Dundee show higher rates than their English or Welsh counterparts.and the social strainsthat can result . with smaller high rate areas around Stoke and Leicester. Nonetheless 19 per cent of working women were employed part-time in 1981 and it is the case that the more independent income a woman receives.426 SIMON DUNCAN The geographical patterns which emerge in Figure 1 seem basically regional and national in scale. outer commuter areas around London in Essex.For instance. small-town and even semiruralareas in these high rate regions match the rates for cities in low rate regions. possibly misleading. Similarly. and how labour market constraints affect them. Lincoln or Bournemouth record the same low rates as surroundingmore rural areas. There are low rate areas in the north and west of Scotland . long distance commuting by men demands greater imputs of domestic work by women while perhapsthe creation of a 'rural idyll' in the outer suburbs reinforces this division of labour in an ideological sense. the urbanised areas of traditionally male paid work in south Wales. it is interesting how throughout these low rate areas it is the new or expanding towns (e. Presumably. Part-time employment is also less well paid. Duncan and Savage.but perhaps many 'housewives' are in fact heavily engaged in nondomestic (if often unpaid) work like crofting and tourism.Ipswich or Norwich do stand out with somewhat higher rates within regions showing low rates of full-time work-but these cities show rates markedlylower than those for towns in high rate regions such as the north west or central Scotland. Certainly the apparent contrast between higher Scottish rates for women in full-time paid work and popular. This may explain the surprisinglyhigh rates in the central Highlands and Shetland where the transition to paid work may be easier for such women. because for women such work is more integrated with a homemakerrole ratherthan indicating departure from it. Other low rate areas include the south coast.1991). Kent and Sussex also show low rates. much of EastAnglia. Cambridge. 1989).is worthy of some research(cf. Hence Exeter. see Walby. but these seem largely subsumed within the overall regional patterns.a similarconclusion was reached by Morris (1991) focussing on a neighbourhood scale . Some. Harlow and Basildon.Interestingly. Local labour markets do of course present a range of job opportunities and constraints of various sorts and Figure I records this. Crawley) together with Brighton-that mini-Londonby the sea . In contrast Wales. normally the more power she holds within the household vis-a-vis spouse or . 1990 on north east England). Robinson and Wallace. benefits and job security (Hurstfield. 1987. depends on wider social relations in the household.
are good examples. at least. Figure 3 is of course largely the statistical residual of Figures 1 and 2 combined.Likewise. with the highest rates in the country with 25 per cent of working women in part-time paid work.Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain 427 the broad swathe of above average part-time rates over much of southern and central England roughly coincided with the area of average full-time rates. A map of men possibly in this role (the census conflates any 'househusbands' with men of independent means) would again be virtually blank with small variations around the 0-6 per cent national average of working men. Figure 2. Source:1981 Census FULL-TIME DOMESTIC WORK Finally. Figure 3 maps the distribution of women in full-time domestic work in 1981. Exceptions to these generalisations are again some new and expanding towns with high rates both for part-time and full-time paid work for women (e. London. parents. . Cambridge.g. Crawley. Nontheless. 1985). seems to confirm this conclusion. Harlow. Wales. Similarly. However. north east England). Thus the London Borough of Camden.g. But some 'sunrise'. eastern England. 2.g. Overall. Nonetheless the geographical patterning of this unreformedhomemakerrole for women is clear. Similarly. which shows the geographical pattern of high and above average rates of part-time paid work for women. those areas with low full-time rates usually also had low part-time rates (e. Cleethorpes and York. the census may well record many de facto househusbands as unemployed but 'economically active'. In 1981 feminisation through part-time paid work was not particularlydeveloped in those peripheral areas previously emphasising male industrial jobs such as south Wales and north east England.many 'housewives' (47-1 per cent of working women) in fact carry out unpaid nondomestic work. womenin part-time FIGURE Working 1981 employment. Farmers'wives are just one example. Usually the latter are places with established gender divisions of labour emphasising part-time work for women. Grimsby. Sayer. Some 'housewives' may also be in casual paid employment. the homemakerrole for women. the south west. industrial Lancashire). Blaneau Gwent in industrial south Wales and Skye and Lochalshin the north west Highlands were all alike in having the lowest national rate for part-timeemployment at 12 per cent of working women.at least not in the aggregate terms we use here. the census will probably have been accurate in defining their social role as that of 'housewife' and these women can be placed squarely in the 'homemaker'role in terms of their position in gender divisions of labour. this distribution of women's part-time paid work contradicts some caricatured versions of the feminisation/spatial divisions of labour thesis (cf.high rates of part-timepaid work for women were most common in those areas to the north of London with average to above average fulltime rates (Bristolcan be seen as an outlier). Part-time work was less developed in Scotland although the same broad conclusions also apply.east Kilbride)and a few areaswith high part-timerates but low full-timerates. Rather. Hence part-time paid work can be said to modify. Berkshire. Areas with high rates of full-time paid work for women in 1981 usually had low part-time rates (e. Only 2-3 per cent of working men were in part time work in 1981 and a map on the same scales as Figure 2 would remainblank. Winchester and Waverley in Surrey(both 22 per cent) are prime cases.'high-tech' areas would seem to be joining this group.
see Figure 4. however. As Figure4 shows. Working women in full-time domestic work. However. although the allocation of marginal places to particular categories was sometimes arbitrary. of internal household relation. figures ranged from only 4 per ROLES cent of women in Leicester to 15-6 per cent in the The census data used in Figures 1-3 gives us little London Borough of Richmond.For this purpose I examined two contrasting categories. the north-east. of what sort of paid work is involved. To some extent this question can be followed up using other census data. A map of dominant work roles for men. A first step was to conflate Figures 1-3 in one index of dominant work roles for women. 1981 Source: 1981 Census categories. Cornwalland Devon. Kent. using census indices of occupational status and conventional household structure. which mirrorpopulation distribution.with a group average indication. Essex and the north west Highlands . eastern England. Presumably this records a basic stratum of full-time 'women's jobs'. Again. . and partsof north east Scotland and the Highlands. In terms of occupational status there were wide variations within the paid-worker group. for women was below the group average for men There can of course be significant differences in (19-9 per cent) who scored 35 per cent in Baret (outer gender roles within 'paidworker' and 'homemaker' London). Each area could then be assigned to 'homemaker' and 'paid worker' categories. as Figure 5 shows. those relatively few women who are employed tend to be employed full-time.428 SIMON DUNCAN < s g 0 miles 100 7_ km 100o FIGURE3. as noted earlier.although unrecorded non-domestic work in farming and tourism will probably be significant in these areas. there was considerabledifferentiation between areas and this was spatially patterned.of 7-8per cent.the whole country would be covered by a 'very high paid worker' category (a category not applying at all to women). Extremesof over 60 per cent were reachedin parts of north Wales. The lowest rates of just over 30 per cent were in west inner London. predominantly in public services. Basically. indeed. the paidworker group as a whole (78 DCs) and an extreme homemaker group (22 DCs). Nonetheless. Figure 4 summarises this process. the overall relationshipwas one where increasingrates for full-timedomestic workers were accompanied by an increasing part-time: fulltime paid worker ratio. even the highest DC rate ships or. VARIATIONS IN CLASS AND 'CONVENTIONALITY' I then used this spatial framework to look more closely at gender role variations within the paidworker and homemaker categories. In such areas. See the appendix for a listing. and graduations within them. Using the percentage of 'economically active' in socioeconomic groups 1-4 (professional and managerial THE GEOGRAPHY OF DOMINANT WORK workers) as an index. using similar indices would show no variation. the south coast. this relationship is reversed in those areas with high domestic worker rates. District councils were graphed according to (1) the percentage of working women in full-timedomestic work and (2) the ratio between the percentage of working women in part-time and fulltime paid work. the paid worker group split into Over 50 per cent of working women were full-time domestic workers in 1981 over most of Wales.Galloway. southwest England.
In contrast to women.- PAIDWORKERS (High) I f a- 0 30.co _ CL (Average) ' ' '.0 Highest (Dwyfor) % full-time domestic labour FIGURE4. ' - F r -o 63.Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain 118. men with high occupational status are most concentrated in the extreme southern and northern London boroughs. and the rest. is not nearly so important.0 - E 3 Lowest a) (Westminster) E . central Scotland and the Scottish cities..i ' ?(Very high) . Again..: *'-. see below). Presumably this again represents the fact that the few women employed in these areas will be in public service jobs with a high proportion of professional workers. together with contiguous outer suburban areas in Surrey.. that is in east London. West inner London Berkshire. however. But these men retain their careers on marriage. . most of the homemaker areas also scored highly in occupational terms. M. where many women 'disappear'as economically active when they move into marriage and the suburbs.0 - 429 Highest (Grimsby) HOMEMAKERS . The first consisted of west inner London with the highest values. ? : ? "0 . however. This suggests the effect of gendered life cycle and housing market factors..industrialLancashire. and indeed also obtain a suburban home complete with domestic worker.sH: :HOMEMAKERS .* . together with high values in the rest of west and south London. with a higher group average of 8-6 per cent. *. We might imagine that certain inner city areas may be particularly important for women's .Their husbands may initially also have lived in west inner London as single men (although this is less likely than for women.:: ' **:* ? : . contiguous areas in Berkshire and Surrey. there is a broad distinction between London. The geographical contrast with male occupational status is quite instructive.+_ . in relative terms. Interestingly..3 UK average PAIDWORKERS : (Average) ": :* * :. as it is for high status employed women. the Midlands paid worker areas. 0 . and the home counties. the new towns.1 UK average 63.:' * : WORKES PAID * = a) MIXED 25. Low scores were recorded in the remainingDCs. Assigning dominant work roles for women: District Councils 1981 Source:1981 Census two groups of DCs. Basingstoke and Trafford. . The Welsh industrial areas were the major exception. Surreyand the 'western crescent' with relatively high rates.0 Lowest (Camden) 47. (High) HOMEMAKERS (Average).
1988). this speculation is supported by the indices on household 'conventionality'. There is also a considerable differentiationwithin the 'paidworker' areas in terms of household Two proxy indices were used to 'conventionality'. for further detail). estimates of relativedifference. Certainly there are significant variations in both indices at the DC level within the paid worker group. to thatfor occupationalstatus. a marriedor cohabiting male-female couple. The second index was the proportion of 'economically active' women (i. In these areas rates were similar or even above those in the homemaker group of DCs. This split between low and high rates is different. Edinburgh and Dundee. Again more detailed follow up work is required. (The national average was 73 per cent in 1981). where bereavement will be most likely.e. surprisingly. as I will show. Winchester and White.1989). this.g. and central Scotland outside large cities. Bexley with 77 per cent).right up to 1970 a divorced husband could sue his ex-wife's lover for damages representing the loss of her unpaid 'services' (Hart. Most women in these areas were in a domestic role in 1981. Basingstoke with 80 per cent). Marriage is of course the major institutional means by which women come to take the domestic role of housewife.Low rates of 'conventionality' (below 57 per cent) were found in central and west London. Salford. but the few women in full-time paid work usually possess higher occupational status than the bulk of employed men. Similarlysome marriedwomen may be financially independent. workroleforwomen.(Again. In the homemaker group of DCs men score substantially lower than women in terms of occupational status in comparisonto other areas.430 SIMON DUNCAN FIGURE Dominant 5. and the pseudo-marriage of cohabitation (which census counts as married)is similarin this respect (Delphy. I do take these as adequate. this may have interesting effects on class-gender interactionin such areas. however. some single persons may just be waiting for conventionality to happen or be involuntary single through bereavement. Indeed. Some marriedcouples may well be 'unconventional'. in paid work) who lived by themselves. Household 'conventionality' ranges from only 35 per cent in the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to 82 per cent in Strathkelvin in central Scotland. However. These women would be both economically independent and were not party to a marriage contract binding them to a male 'head of household'. were excluded). Leicester. for the two most peripheral . Low household conventionality' is very much a city phenomenon except. The first was the percentage of represent households consisting of. (Pensioner households. if rough. Clearly both these indices are particularlycrude. Birmingham. 1991. 1976). housing access and lifestyles. using DC level data this is most noticeable for London (see Duncan. or including. western crescent areas (e.1981 Source: 1981 Census social mobility and for the development of alternative gender roles (cf. Oxford. as well as more detailed work on socio-spatial mobility. Nonetheless. Again. 1990. Manchester. while the index does not record single women in multi-personhouseholds and will hence seriously underestimate 'independence'in those areas with high rates of multiple occupation.g. the Welsh industrial areas are an exception where both score low). Particularlyhigh rates were found in some London suburbs (e.
the more 'conventional' paid worker DCs split between high status areas in the west London suburbsand the 'western crescent'. whatever the size of the contributionthe woman is defined as secondary and it is this socially defined role we are interested in here. see Appendix) fitted into this pattern. It is for this reason that the increasing polarisation in housing access in Britainis also a process of feminisation. indeed often lower. Now. Similarly. the converse was true. single and mobile workers. the traditionalborrowers. There are two major observations to make about Table II. the relatively less conventional areas (with high scores) were restricted outside central and west London to Oxford. departed from this pattern with low rates of conventionality.female headed households are increasingly concentrated on high cost. both the national average and the highest scores were lower for men (5-5 per cent nationally and 18 per cent in Westminster) than for women. on a par with gaining income and carryingout domestic work. University towns may also show lower 'conventionality' levels. The table is based on borrowing records from the Nationwide Anglia Building Society. Rates in the eastern and outer western London suburbs and the western crescent were again just as low. ranging between 25 per cent in Kensington and Chelsea and 3 per cent in east Kilbride in central Scotland (the national average was 8 per cent). Overall. small towns. Dundee and Aberdeen.usually demands higher economic competence. however. Only Hove. Securing housing is of course a prime household task. while the opposite applies to men. Do they gain access in their own right-defined socially as independent and economically competent persons . It is also the chief means of gaining access to housing in Britain even for such apparently economically irrationalcases as young. depending on definitions of economic competence and social status. The paid worker/homemaker distinction was less relevant. Women borrowers are defined by Nationwide Anglia as single women or joint mortgagors where a women's name came first. one part of the Brighton conurbation. suburbs and rural areas on the other. as well as for the extreme homemaker DCs. The 'independent woman' index showed a similar distribution. This is of course not surprising given the way I measured conventionality.Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain 431 homemaker areas of Skye and Lochalsh and the Western Isles (68 per cent and 64 per cent respectively). 1990). currently the second largest in Britain. The less 'conventional' paid worker DCs score highly in status terms in west inner London (and Oxford) but lower in east inner London and provincial cities. . In such cases. hence to retain economic independence they are more likely to remain single. The access of women to owner-occupation provides another clue to their relative status in various areas. however. Maybe this reflects the fact that women are often pressured to give up full-time work with marriage or the advent of children. But how this housing is acquired is also a gendered process. A group of DCs with high rates of part-time work for women (29 DCs. occupational status and household conventionality these resembled the 'homemaker' category. There will of course be many joint mortgages where a man's name is first.or via a male head of household who is described as the possessor of these qualities? Table II presents this information for the paid worker sub-groups identified above. For marriedmen. for example employment prospects. these two indices of 'conventionality' and 'women's independence' tended to distinguish between large urban areas on the one handespecially inner urban areas although university towns may also be included . The distribution of single independent men was similar except that the Scottish cities no longer recorded high scores. private rented accomodation or in the less attractive council housing (Sexty. but where a woman co-borrower will be contributing a substantial part of repayment costs.and industrial towns. than in 'homemaker'areas. especially by single women. but low quality. and low status industrial and new towns (see Appendix). Edinburgh. These latter figures perhaps record the effects of marriedmen working away from home in areas of high unemployment and low population. Adding in occupational status gives another socio-spatial dimension to these 'conventionality' categories. With generally high rates of domestic work. although it is interesting that occupational status is less important. Interestingly. combined with judgements about social status. Owneroccupation. in contrast. THE GEOGRAPHY OF GENDER ROLES AND ACCESS TO HOUSING Does social behaviour differin these paid worker area sub-groups as distinguished by occupational status and 'conventionality'? One indication is given by differentialaccess to housing. however. The other is that borrower rates for both single women and single men decrease as 'conventionality' increases. One is the increase in borrowing by women since 1981.
But if gender roles vary so significantly. We can add here that these different experiences also vary geographically within Britain. This relation does not appear to vary much between areas-rather it is the marrige rate and borrowing by single people which varies.Partly . do the relations which produce them also vary? (cf.relations between men (5) male definitions of sexuality However. These results support the work of Munro and Smith (1989) who showed that the housing experiences for men and women are different at the scale of Britainas a whole.432 SIMON DUNCAN TABLE Building II. Halford. This dominance was significantly less in 1989. High domesticlabour homemaker areas 1989 %married women 1981 1989 %single men 1981 1989 %single women 1981 1989 Total 26 18 14 13 34 27 23 20 47 60 65 69 36 50 53 58 7 7 6 6 8 8 7 7 27 22 21 18 30 23 24 22 19 11 8 7 26 19 16 13 100 100 100 100 12 19 75 63 6 8 13 18 6 11 100 Source: calculated from Nationwide Anglia Building Society special tabulations and women about who does what. and by this time married men accounted for little over a third of borrowers in this extreme group. Marriedmen were in a majority in all areas in 1981 except marginallyin the high occupational status/low conventionality sub-group. and practices. for whom and what is expected to return. borrowers sexandmarital status: worker homemaker 1981/89 and areas Society by paid %married men 1981 1989 %women 1981 1. (1987. 21314). 1989) We explore this question furtherin this section. It is of course axiomatic that gender practicesin the state roles are produced and maintained by underlying (4) male violence social relations of gender . rather it is about controlling social resources. Marriedwomen borrowers remained very much a minority in all areas and for both years. Patriarchy can be defined as 'a system of social strucutres. 1989. But we should not forget that patriarchal domination is also about controlling women in themselves.partriarchal domination seeks to control the labour of women so as to benefit men. . this is in itself gendered where for single women there is a greater differential between areas than for single men. to establish power over female sexuality and also to establish and defend ideas of masculinity and femininity. This is why census informationgives us some proxy informationabout gender roles. The difference between the married men and married women rates is testimony to the head of household/breadwinner role achieved by men on marriage. Clearly. note that this effect is more pronounced for single women than for single men. patriarchy as a social system will underlie both divisions of labour and household dynamics. it is apparent that there are wide variations within Britainand that these variations show a divisions of labour in paid work (2) patriarchal (3) patriarchal spatial ordering. however. These are divisions of labourin the household (1) patriarchal methodology. What is this domination about? It is not just a matter of gender discriminating bias. The previous section describes at some length the How does patriarchaldomination work? Walby geography of gender divisions of labour in Britain. in which men dominate. Women do more work for less reward. helping therefore to determine the economic. oppress and exploit women' (Walby. social and demographic characteristics of A GEOGRAPHY OF PATRIARCHY? populations.This is where the concept of patriarchy becomes useful. Nonetheless. A first stage is to establish what these gender relations consist of and how they are structured. Paid workerareas High SEG/Low Conv Low SEG/Low Conv High SEG/High Conv Low SEG/High Conv 2. pp.and this is what we concentrated on in this paper . 1989) identifies six dimensions which together Despite limitations of both source material and form a self-reinforcingsystem.
there will be a long tradition of full-time employment for women. Patriarchalsystems are no exception . pervasiveness and natureof social systems will not be the same in different places (Duncan and Savage. where the predominant sources of conflict are sexual possessiveness. Given that patriarchal gender relations are so important in determining social. mostly by husbands. This process is of course well established on an international scale. however. These different regional contexts. in the degree to which they are developed and in their relationship to another. only about a third were full-time housewives. monogamous heterosexuality in husband-wifehouseholds is maintainedas the norm (with double standardsfor men) and so on. HMSO 1989. McDowell and Massey. Walby 1986).3Does all this mean that in this areapartiarchal relationswork in a differentway to elsewhere in Britain? Not only do women living in west inner London have higher rates of full-time working. e. and a greater . In some areas. Geography will map out. for example. 1989). Walby. in IslamicAfricacapitalistmodemisation has increased women's paid employment in high status jobs. But also this is where the interactionbetween households and workplaces is crucial. But if we follow Walby in stressing the interconnections between her six dimensions of patriarchy there are further geographical implications. 1986). this results from the embodiment of patriarchal power in the institution of marriage (regardless of whether. influencehow patriarchal social systems work including the differentialdevelopment and mix of Walby's six dimensions. in religion. economic and demographic characteristics. the media. 1989) although others would prioritize patriarchy. This is the core of the 'dual system' approach (cf. or how. for example. Partly. But there is no a priori reason why similar contextual differentiationshould not also occur on a sub-national scale and this is what the previous description of the geography of gender roles in Britainsuggests. like industrialLancashire. (See Duncan.they are clearly of some importance in the creation of geographies. for example through the benefit system. while in LatinAmerica it has encouraged their employment in low statusjobs (Scott. They may have boundaries and will be unevenly developed. The latter are denied full access to women's labour. This can happen in two ways. Hence to gain access to resources women must marry or live with a man.there is an equally long tradition of full-time domestic labour for women.which are fundamental although some feminists would place more emphasis on other dimensions (see Ackers. and control over household finances. less than half of households contained a married couple and 20 per cent or so of employed women lived alone. Conversely. First patriarchal relations will operate in different contexts which will affect how they work. State policies are often directed towards maintaining families with male 'head of households'. 1984. In non-Islamic west Africa. which was relatively weakly developed in some economic spheres. education etc.Painter. 1989. 1986). still less do they control its allocation. about half of working women were in full-time paid work in 1981 . demands over labour services.Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain 433 (6) patriarchal practices in civil society. social systems do not only operate in spatially organised contexts. in others. Finallythe other dimensions of patriarchysupport this settlement. and a balance is set up between capitalist and patriarchalinterests. individual men choose to exercise that power). on the difference that space makes). produced in part by spatial divisions of capitalist labour.Patriarchalpractices in workplaces deny many women secure. as well as social and historical. (It appears that about 60 per cent of women experience domestic violence. men exchange their labour in the capitalist marketfor a wage but women do not typically receive a proportion of that wage equivalent to the value or the time of their work. so that the strength. And this variation will inevitably be spatial.g. Deviating wives may be physically attacked. how patriarchal and capitalist structures actually relate on the ground. In west inner London. high status or high income jobs and it is usually not possible to combine career development with dependent care. This interaction in turn demands a 'historical compromise' between the interests of patriarchsand capitalists. classically in coal mining areasof Britain.many in high status occupations. 1989. which initially at least is also cheaper. Secondly.they may in themselves work differently in different places. but have little control over what has been created.or indeed capitalism (see the debate in Crompton and Mann. for instance. In addition 25 per cent are raped. girls are socialised and educated towards women's work. 1991). ForWalby it is the firsttwo dimensions concerning the division of labour.and their interaction. In the household women work to reproduce the labour of men. they themselves have geographies. There will be variations in the form of each dimension. the penetration of capitalist markets increases patriarchalpower.
The LS follows a I per cent sample of census respondents from 1971-1981. This materialsuggests that the life cycle is strongly gendered as well as being strongly geographical.not surprisingly. not surprisingly. the importance of west inner London is clear although this may also result from locational centrality within London.not just to relatively high paid and high status full-time jobs. 1992).4Give the high scores for non-conventional households and independent single women. and equally indicative of relations vis-a-vis men. There is also evidence that women have more political influence in west inner London.434 SIMON DUNCAN likelihood of having high status jobs but. We have already seen that household 'conventionality' is much lower than elsewhere in west inner London. in the provision of local authority services and generally in the borough area.west inner London plays a significant role as a 'port of entry' for recruitmentto full time jobs from other parts of Britain and abroad. over 95 per cent of men in this group in 1971 remained in 1981. It may well be that other areas in the large cities in the 'low conventionality' paid workergroup show similar patterns (cf.etc). Analysis of LS data for London shows three major things. most usefully for this paper it therefore records the characteristicsof individualsratherthan areas. Similarly. once women are in part-time paid or domestic work they tend to stay there. 1989). as an examinationof the LongitudinalStudy (LS)census data shows. On the other hand 50 per cent of full-time paid women in 1971 had left for part-time paid work or full-time domestic work by 1981. 1988). Although these committees have achieved mixed success. Secondly.but for women in full-time paid work in-migration rates for west inner London are over double those for the rest of London. eight have Women's Committees (Brenthas a sub-committee). Rates for married women were low everywhere in London (as in Britainas a whole). Of the eleven constituent boroughs. couples with children in suburbs. 1991. These initiatives are charged with improving the position of women within the local authority itself.changes to this life cycle pattern will usually mean spatial changes. There is some scatteredinformationthat this 'unconventionality'may also extend to other areas of social behaviour including sexuality. In-migrating men tend to locate all over London . Finally. average wage levels for women working fulltime in this area are also higher than in the rest of London and about 25 per cent higher than the British average (Brentis an exception). in-migrants involved in part-time paid work or full-time domestic labour (nearly all women) mostly move to other areas of London (see Duncan.it confirms the overall male breadwinner/female homemaker categories in terms of recruitmentand mobility.but indicatively single men tended to borrow for purchase throughout London while single women were much more concentrated in this area. these patterns are less strong in west inner London than in the rest of London. has a fairly active equal opportunities programme (Halford and Duncan. But the LSdata shows that this role and its spatial expression is strongly gender differentiated. the suburban couple consist of 'breadwinning'male and 'homemaking'female). First. mortgage borrowing by women is also high. but also to relatively independent and unconventional life styles. however. Once men become full-time paid workers they tend to stay in this role. Men and women pass through various life cycle stages. and typically these stages take place in different sorts of place (young single adults in inner-cities. This is of course a well-known role for London as a whole (Fielding. . for furtherdetails). But what men and women actually do in these life-cycles stages can be quite different (to follow up this traditionalmodel. Figure 6 maps the occurence of gay and lesbian social facilities by borough. Conversely. Women made up nearly 40 per cent of borrowers from the Nationwide Anglia in 1989 in this area (compared to just 20 per cent in 1978) with marriedmen reduced to something of a rump at just 25 per cent of borrowers. Even so.the three exceptions being Conservative controlled and hence almost by definition excluding these radical 'local feminist' initiatives. In other words. for example women in full-time work who do not cohabit with a man will be much more likely to live in certain 'inner-city'areas. women's rates of fulltime working reached 60 per cent of male levels in west inner London compared to less than 40 per cent in suburban London and around 30 per cent nationally. west inner London is particularlyimportant for allowing social mobility for women. Wandsworth. in combination with these high levels of full-timeworking in relatively well paid and secure high status jobs. Winchester and White. in some of these boroughs feminist groups have been highly influentialin local politics (Halford. 1990. Borrowing by single men was also important in west inner London .Finally. Conversely. This demands more detailed work. one of these. This area of London is also particularly important for women's socio-spatial mobility.
won using occupational class as a predictor of the quent to the decline of traditional. 1991). We should stress. There are. 1989). who are able to insert themselves into the Mattinson 1988).February 1991 1989).seems to be narrowing. Gay and Lesbian Social Facilities:Greater London 1991 Source:Gay Times. the eastern suburbsacted in the opposite direction. The period when the 'new urban election which the Conservative party 'should' have left' took control in many Labourauthorities.the 'gender gap' in Britishvoting behavare run by the Conservative or Liberal Democrat iour has historically led to greater support for the parties. Hart. while much of working class east London and fit this model very well. provided this point and many of Labour made only ten more of these contra-class the local authorities in west inner London seem to gains. In that this is not the only way in which women's other words Labourdoes much better in west inner . It appears that if feminist women are to have Conservative party by women (although this gap influence in local politics. substantial variations by age and social relations producing relatively independent women.(Halford. Indeed in west inner London the local government political machinery at crucial Labourparty won thirteen seats in the 1987 general changeover points. male workplace result. however. conse. out initiatives are Labourcontrolled. there needs to be a particu. although most Similarly. Some of these boroughs with.Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain 435 FIGURE6. In some cases it was race 21 London boroughs have these initiatives (including which became the dominant equal opportunities issue two sub-committees). only five of the remaining committees can emerge. In the whole of the rest of south east England labour movements. lar combination of local socio-economic and gender nonetheless. middle-class women the conscious of themselves as a feminist and left wing gender gap favours the Labour party (Hewitt and group. On the other hand. status and with young.
5 That 'the differencethat space makes'in fact operates at various scales for various processes is logically most likely (see Duncan and Savage. still less about male violence.it can say little about internal household and workplace relationships. other indications of increasing gender equality in west inner London are not so sanguine.managerial and administrativegroups. The traditionalmale breadwinner/femalehomemakerrole and 'conventional' male dominated households may be increasingly uncommon. In some areas such as west inner London new gender roles and cultures may be developing in contrast to the establishedmale breadwinner/femalehomemaker roles. Hence I can comment. especially in Manchester and Edinburgh. these divisions are differentiallydeveloped in different areas of Britain.436 SIMON DUNCAN London than would be expected in class and geographical terms. although comparative information is not available. Women may do better in west inner London as far as access to full-time work is concerned.can compensate for any weakening elsewhere. depended upon swings to them among professional.For all age groups. Pratt. And it is just these areas which are so important to women with full-timejobs living in 'independent'households. including some public transport. (Second Islington Crime Survey. We also know that levels of male nondomestic violence towards women are high in this area. However.These geographical variations in gender divisions of labour are associated with variations in household structure and 'conventionality'. The Islington report concludes that 'It is not an exaggeration to conclude that many women in inner city areas live in a state of virtualcurfew'. On the evidence provided by Johnston et al (1988) . For instance. as discussed in the second section.Again. this curfew will vary between different sorts of places at different times (Valentine. if in a limited and aggregate way. sexuality. In the conclusion which follows I discuss what this paper has achieved and how furtherwork might proceed. Fully 27 per cent of women aged between 16-54 never go out alone at night and certain places. 1990).who in their otherwise exhaustive analysis neglect gender gaps completely . 1991). there .in a stronger spatial sense . while patriarchalbehaviour in paid work might be much more relevant to a labour market scale. 1991.this relative success for Labour in west inner London and other similar high status inner metropolitan areas. First of all. with full-time paid women earning around 67 per cent of the average full-time male wage.be constituted at different scales. There are also major limitations to the work presented here. 74 per cent of women in Islington stay in their homes very or fairly often for fear of attack. It may even be that women have obtained some independent political influence and that partiarchallifestyle norms are also breaking down. 1989). 1991). Women in full time paid jobs working in this areamay have high wages relative to other similar women in the rest of London and Britainas a whole. The paper concentrates on workplace labour categories and households as units. on the geography of gender roles but can only speculate on the variations in gender relations that lie behind them. This discussion of how gender relations may operate differently in different places exposes the limitations of using aggregate data and ecological mapping to discover how social processes work. And this of course excludes part-time work and full-time domestic work which even in this area accounts for about half of working women (compared to 70 per cent nationally). Men also earn more in this area so gender differentials are maintained. the discussion of west innerLondon above seems to support this and also dovetails with researchon labourmarket vis-a-vis neighbourhood influences on household behaviour (Morris. however. however. is nearly always avoided. and that in this sense public places are 'policed' by men. despite the limitations discussed earlier. I would claim however that this paper can be heuristically useful in pointing to the significant variationsin the geography of gender roles as a starting point for further work. compared to 40 per cent of men. gender identity and all those other elements forming patriarchalsocial systems. Finally the differentdimensions of patriarchymay also operate at differentscales or even . How might such work proceed? There are perhaps three major routes. CONCLUSIONS In this paper I have demonstrated two major points. Secondly. But compared to men working in this area wage differentials remain the same. But unequal gender divisions of labour are still predominant and it may well be the case that other patriarchaldimensions of control like male violence in public places . household and neighbourhood scales may be more important for expectations about gender roles or the prevalence of male violence. gender divisions of labour are both marked and relatively fixed. First of all.
S. Leicester.low conventionality materialwhich supports this conclusion. Cleethorpes. S. Rhuddlan. The 1950s/60s work on community and family structure is a good example (see Pahl.Edinburgh. house' compared to 44 per cent of marriedwomen and Islington. The Labour Force Survey provides some interesting 1. S. this was because they were 'looking after the family/ Haringey. Social survey and ethnographic investigation can reveal much about how gender relations work in these situations. Hove. Lambeth.Harlow. Chiltern. N. Woodspring. Redditch. 1990. Kensington and Chelsea. Jane Eyles. Enfield. Kevin Fielding. Gower. Milton Keynes. Corwall. Sue Justice and Richard Johnson for help in collecting statistical information. Rossendale. Great Grimsby. Kingswood. NOTES 1. Brent. Westminster 3. Crawley. Lambeth. Thanks also to Susan Halford and Susan Mackenzie for comments on an earlier draft and to Liz Bondi. Bumley. Tendring. Carmarthen. Camden. Stevenage. Corby. Only 1 per cent of all 'economically inactive' men in 1988 replied that Bamet. Skye and Lochalsh. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First thanks must go to Mark Baigent. CynonValley. Richmond. Centre for Urban and Regional Research. Redbridge. Aberdeen. Hounslow. Dorset. York. Wight. Voting surveys are just one case in point. Mid-Suffolk. Haringey. S. S. E. Bromley. however. And finally.Harrow. Newham. S. Camden. Kennington and Chelsea. Also Research Fellow. Preseli. Manchester. Inverness. Thanks to an anonymous referee for this point.Southwark. Hackney. West inner London is defined here as the boroughs of Brent. Merton.high conventionality Barking. Blackbur. Scunthorpe. 1988. (1987) 'Family Matters'. Oxford.Kilbride. (1989) 'The problem with patriarchy'. West Lothian . Unfortunately the New Earnings Survey from which Tower Hamlets. Strathkelvin. Broadland. Luton. work on the geography of gender roles and gender relations can hold one key to understandingwhy men and women experience life as they do in modem Britain. Kingston.1 High socialstatus. Dwyfor. Aldershot) BAGGULEY. Ynys Mon. Rhondda. Beverley. Ross and Cromarty. Ceredigion. Lewisham. St Edmondsbury. R. 1. REFERENCES ACKERS.3 High socialstatus. Bedfordshire. Oldham. Cotswold. 3 Extreme part-time DCs Adur. Renfrew. Dinefwr. L. Space7: 277-92 APPENDIX. Cumbemauld and Kilsyth.Pendle. S. Staffordshire/Moorlands.J. Wandsworth.. Chichester. Waverley. there is a need for in-depth research on households. Hackney. Ealing. Wealdan.Runnymede. Waltham Forest this data is taken is based on place of work rather than residence as in the census. Purcell. as many sociological studies have been shown (see Morris. BROOK. Kennett. But there have been few attempts to make such work geographically sensitive. Llanelli. Ealing.high conventionality 5. N. Stoke on Trent. both original statistical material as well as published results.DISTRICT COUNCIL CATEGORIES Walford. Paidworker DCs 2.4 Lowsocialstatus. there is a mass of historical material which is waiting to be reinterpreted. Bromsgrove. Babergh. It might even be possible to extend this sort of study into less easy researchareas like male violence or sexuality.Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain 437 is still scope for re-using aggregate and statistical information which up to now has usually been interpreted in a gender blind fashion. Slough. workplaces and civil institutions.D: Soc. Brighton BNl 9QN. Oswestry. Pembroke. Sutton.Sociology 23: 235-40 ASHFORD. Medina. Coventry. Berwick on Tweed. Rother. Islington. Hyndbum. (1989) 'Gender restructuring: a comparative analysis of five local labour markets'.2 Lowsocialstatus. and WALBY. 1991). and Westminster (see Duncan. Spelthome. Ryedale. 1986). Basingstoke. Hammersmith and 1.Plann. 1989). W.Bracknell.P. 2 Extreme homemaker DCs Blaneau Gwent. Norfolk. 1.Caradon. Bolton. Tameside. Salford.. Cambridgeshire. Kerrier. Bexley. Preston. Meronnydd. Dundee. Hammersmith and Fulham. Secondly. Certainly. Chorley. 4. WITHERSPOON. (eds) British Social Attitudes: the 1987 Report (Social and Community Planning Research.low conventionality Fulham. 10 per cent of single women. Environ. Clydebank. Sylvia Chant and Sylvia Walby for support and encouragement. Windsor and Maidenhead 1. Mathew Gandy kindly provided the material for Figure 6. Birmingham. Isles. Hinkley and Basworth. Wandsworth. Bury. University of Sussex. in JOWELL. Greenwich. Restormel. Penwith. Hillingdon. S.
R. J. London) HODGSON. (1980) 'Part-time pittance'. (1989) 'Space. Brighton) DUNCAN. Low Pay Review 1. (1986) 'Forlove not money: gender relations in local areas' (Centre for Urban and Regional Development Discussion Paper No. Middlesex) COHEN. J. and MILLAR. ance of women's domestic role'.. and ULLAH. (1985) 'Gender and local politics: struggles over welfare policies 1918-1939'.SAVAGE. (1989) 'Migration and social change: a study of South East England based upon data from the longitudinal study'. (eds) London:A New Metropolitan Geography (Unwin Hyman. (1989) Localities (Unwin and Hyman. and WARDE.London) LAITE. (1983) Socialinnovation labour(Oxford University Press. (1988) A Nation Dividing? The ElectoralMap of Great Britain1979-87 (Longman. Univ. (1984) Spatial divisions of labour: social structuresand the geography of production(Macmillan. D.P. S. thesis. N.J. (1988) 'Occupational segregation and women's politics'. and MATTINSON. London) pp. FabianRes. M. Brighton) pp. S. C. (1987) Women and Povertyin Britain(Wheatsheaf. Ph. London) pp..353 HMSO. London) MASSEY. 195-215 MARK-LAWSON. London) pp. in GALLIE. J. London) CROOKE. University of Newcastle) BOWLBY.McDOWELL.14: 24-36 FINCH. (1984) 'A woman's place?'. and ALLSOPP. in FRYER.438 SIMON DUNCAN HALFORD. J. in GREEN.. FOORD. London) BEVERIDGE. in BARKER. and MANN. and HOGGART.of RuralStud. conf. (1947) Voluntary Action (Allen and Unwin. scale and locality'. Trans. 6404 (HMSO. in BARKER.Inst. (ed) GenderSegregation at Work (Open University Press. R. D.3:335-42 McDOWELL. London) GLENDINNING. Milton Keynes) pp. Geography 17-26 CENTRE FOR CRIMINOLOGY (1990) Second Islington Crime Survey (Middlesex Polytechnic. and HALFPENNY.D. L. Geoforum 131-40 DUNCAN. 90-107 DUNCAN. Br.S. 128-47 MANSFIELD. 217-40 LAND. J. Sexual Divisions and Society: Processand Change (Tavistock. 376-405 BRANNEN. Environ. S.the household and social networks'. G. Brighton) HALFORD. A.WALBY. J. (eds) UnemployedPeople (Open University Press. (1987) 'Lone Mothers'. 175: 19-47 HEWITT. Geogr. D. S.. J. (1992) 'Implementing feminist policies in British local government'. and MASSEY. unpubl. 73. S. Cambridge) DEEM. G. (1991) 'Gender divisions of labour'. 161-292 MORRIS. Oxford) GITTINS. M. 76. J. (1989) 'Women in the home and the home in neighbourhood'. London) and CROMPTON. (1988) 'Employment. P. S. S. J. C. C. S. PATTIE. and BEVERIDGE. J. S. L. D. London) MILLAR. Milton Keynes) DELPHY.A 23: 155-64 FIELDING. S. L. C. StatisticalSer.. (1976) 'Continuities and discontinuities in marriage and divorce'..The 1990 Report (FamilyPolicy Studies Centre. URRY. J. (1990) 'Women. ALLEN.J. (1982) Fair Sex: family size and structure 1900-1939 (Hutchinson. (1990) 'Gender divisions of labour in London' (Centre for Urban and Regional Research Working Paper No.S.D. London) W.. New LeftRev. paper. J. R. (eds) Sexual Divisions and Society: Process and Change (Tavistock.P. P. Enfield. unemployment and the domestic division of labour'. (eds) Geography Matters! (Open University Press.M. Policyand Politics(forthcoming) HART. (1942) SocialInsurance Allied Services. M. (1988) 'Women's votes: the key to winning'. and SAVAGE. work and the family: control 75: and constraints'. S. D. class and gender (Pion.S. Antipode31: 179-206 DUNCAN.D and ALLEN. feminism and the local state: women's initiatives in British local government in the 1980s'.L. B. P.Oxford) pp.. S.J. Milton Keynes) pp. (eds) Locality. (1986) All Work and No Play: The Sociologyof Women and Leisure (Open University Press. (1987) 'Genderrelations in ruralareas:the importJ. (1991) 'Localpolitics. and DUNCAN. and ROBERTS.Plann. S. (1989) 'Spatial divisions and women's initiatives in British local government'.C. (1987) 'Employment. and SAVAGE. (1991) 'New perspectives on the locality debate'. (1989) Domestic violence: An Overview of the Literature (HMSO. University of Sussex. (1976) 'Women: supporters or supported'. M. in MASSEY. (eds). The Beveridge Report Cmnd. H. Geoforum20: 161-74 . J. (1984) 'Women living in London'. University of Sussex. M. S. (1984) Womenand employment:a lifetimeperspective (HMSO. D. S. and ALLEN. 108-32 LITTLE. SAVAGE. (eds) Women and Poverty in Britain (Wheatsheaf. 157-73 MARTIN. S.. K. London) pp. London) FRANKLIN. and MILLER. and WILSON. in WALBY. JOHNSTON. D.J. (1990) Caring for Children. SHAPIRO. A. of Bristol and the divisionof GERSHUNNY.Ser. A. (1989) 'Uneven development and the 20: difference that space makes'. London) of the Restof YourLife? MARK-LAWSON. in GLENDINNING. in MURGATROYD. 0. (1989) The Beginning (MacMillan. London) BOWLBY. W. M. (ed) Employmentin Britain (Blackwell. D. and WARD. (1983) Married to the Job (Allen and Unwin. (eds) (1987) Give and Take in Families(Unwin and Hyman. London) HURSTFIELD. Milton Keynes) pp. 95-122 DUNCAN. unpubl. and COLLARD. School for Advanced Urban Studies. (eds) (1986) Gender Stratification (Polity Press. Brighton HALFORD. (1989) 'Gender and the rise and fall of class politics'. J. A.34 (GreaterLondon Council. S. S.
Employment Soc. Commission to the EuropeanCommunity. Cambridge) CapitalistRelationsin Employment WALBY. in JOWELL. R. and BROOK. (1989) The Sexual Contract (Polity. A. 23:257-66 PURCELL.P. (1989) Money and Marriage(Macmillan. L. and BROOK. (1989) 'The geography of women's fear'. S.C. (1989) 'Theorising patriarchy'.Employment Gaz. HousingStud. (ed) Employmentin Britain (Blackwell.A PRATT. (eds) British Social Attitudes: 1988 Report (Social and Community Planning Research. (1985) 'Sex roles and gender issues'. Employment Soc. JOWELL. S.. (1984) 'Growth and utilisation of part-time labour in Great Britain'. A.D: marginalised groups in the inner-city'. in R.Oxford) pp. L. (1989) Round about Fifty Hours a Week (Child Poverty Action Group. 98-116 Plann.. (1986) 'Spatial aspects of the growth of part-time employment in Britain'. 23: 165-77 MOSS. London) TOWNSEND. Definitions DEF (HMSO. L. (1989) If Women Counted:A New Feminist Economics (Macmillan. the collectivity and the labourmarket:the case of married and couples'. SAVAGE. J. E.Oxford) PAHL. 3: 447-64 MORRIS. L. Area 21: 385-90 WALBY. London) GreatBritain. M. URRY. and WARDE. R.Gower. A.F.D. (1991) 'Discourses of locality'. K. WALBY. 92: 391-7 ROGERS. in LITTLE. Aldershot) ZWEIG. and MANN. (1986) Divisionsof Labour (Blackwell. (1989) 'Gender and housing: broadening the debate'. (1990) Women Losing Out: Access to Housing in BritainToday(Shelter. S. S. J.GEN 81 OPCS (1981) Census1981. Environ. and SMITH.. self-respect and the irrelevance of "rationaleconomic man" '. 157-86 ROBINSON.. (eds) Gender and Stratification (Polity.Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain MORRIS. (1990) 'Capital restructuring and the domestic economy: family. London) PICKUP. S. J. London) . J.K. S. Regional Studies 20: 313-30 VALENTINE. 41: 103-42 WINCHESTERH. in MURGATROYD. WITHERSPOON. M. P. WITHERSPOON. S. in GAILLIE. (1988) 'The location of Plann. P.L. PEAKE. Aldershot) WITHERSPOON. Cambridge) PIACHAUD. (1991) Wife Rape. (1990) 'Sex segregation in local labour markets'. in CROMPTON R. (1988) 'A woman's work'. (1985) 'Spatial and historical variations in women's employment and unemployment'.Space7: critiqueof radicalresearch'. SHAPIRO. L. (1986) Patriarchyat Work: Patriarchaland (Polity. (eds) Women in Cities (Macmillan. M. (1991) 'Locality studies and the household'. (1974) Housewife(Allen Lane. Gower. D. Soc. (1952) TheBritishWorker(Penguin. D. A. (1986) 'Industrialisation. London) PAHL. London) pp. (eds) British Social Attitudes: The 1985 Report (Social and Community Planning Research. B. L.G. (1985) 'Industry and space: a sympathetic PlannD: Soc.. (1988) Men Only: An Investigationof Men's (Pandora. London) OPCS (1990) Monitor SS 90/3 (HMSO. Capitaland Class. 154-189 SEXTY. RICHARDSON P. S.London) Organisations SAYER. Space6: 37-54 WITHERSPOON. M. and BAGGULEY. (1989) 'Gender and the experience of employment'.Plann. 4: 59-81 and WARING. London) pp.A. 0.A.) WHEELOCK.London. and WALLACE.Wk. (1988) Childcareand Equality of Opportunity (EuropeanCommission ChildcareNetwork. classandgender(Pion. and WHITE. (1988) 'Hard to get around: a study of women's travel mobility'.. and J. Manchester) PATEMAN. (eds) Locality.4: 3-17 OAKLEY. S. Environ. C.Environ: 253-76 439 SCOTT. Brussels) MUNRO. Wk..London) PAINTER. S. A. Marriage and the Law (Manchester University. (1989) 'Household strategies: the individual. 61-176 WALBY.gender segregation and stratification theory'. M. Cambridge)pp. Environ. Sociology 23: 213-34 WALBY.