Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
DOI 10.1007/s11199-009-9714-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Female Breadwinner: Phenomenological Experience
and Gendered Identity in Work/Family Spaces
Rebecca J. Meisenbach
Published online: 10 November 2009
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Although female breadwinners (FBWs) are in-
creasingly common in industrialized society and challenge
traditional western gender norms, little research has focused
specifically on the experiences of FBWs. These experiences
impact individual, family, and organizational decision
making. Thus, this project uses a phenomenological method
to explore the experiences and gendered identity negotia-
tions of 15 FBWs from the eastern and midwestern U.S.
who were recruited via electronic message boards and
personal contacts. The study asks how these women
experience the phenomenon of being the breadwinner,
seeking common elements. Results indicate six essential
elements of FBWs’ experiences: (a) having control, (b)
valuing independence, (c) feeling pressure and worry, (d)
valuing partner’s contributions, (e) feeling guilt and
resentment, and (f) valuing career progress.
Keywords Female breadwinners . Gendered identity
negotiation . Phenomenology . Control . Communication
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to determine female breadwin-
ners’ (FBWs) articulation of the essential elements of their
breadwinner experiences in order to understand more about
the impact of the breadwinner role on FBWs, which in turn
impacts their identities, families, and organizations. This
article uses a phenomenological perspective and method to
R. J. Meisenbach (*)
Department of Communication, University of Missouri,
115 Switzler Hall,
Columbia, MO 65211-2310, USA
e-mail: meisenbachr@missouri.edu
have 15 FBWs articulate their own experiences with the
phenomenon of female breadwinning in opposite sex
marriages. In-depth interviews with participants were
analyzed for common elements and themes of the bread-
winning experience. The sample consists of white collar
women from the United States, but the research also aligns
with and develops research on white collar FBWs from
other countries.
The Male Breadwinner Tradition
At the start of the 21st century, only a third of U.S.
households enact the male breadwinner model (U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics 2004, 2008). This model traditionally
involves a husband providing a household’s primary
income through paid work in the public sphere and a wife
who may earn a supplemental income but definitely
manages the home and any children (Chapman 2004). In
her review of existing uses of the breadwinner term in
sociological research, Warren (2007) noted how breadwin-
ning has been characterized as (a) providing financial
support for a household, (b) the deployment of labor in
the market sector, (c) an impetus for social policy, and most
importantly for this study, as (d) a standard for male
identity; it is a gendered role with implications for policy
and identity negotiation.
In terms of policy, Janssens (1998) suggested that this
image of the male breadwinner as provider is key to
justifying the traditional gendering of the public sphere as
masculine and the private sphere as feminine. In studying
breadwinning in the U.S., the U.K., the Netherlands, and
Sweden, Sainsbury (1996) noted that the influence of this
norm is strong enough to prescribe strict husband and wife
labor division, a split that tends to be supported and
reinforced by legislation. Thus, in many countries the male
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
as breadwinner model serves as a normative ideal that
influences the creation of public policies (Crompton 1999;
Sainsbury 1996; Warren 2007).
This breadwinner ideal also has been tied intricately to
issues of masculine identity, such that a husband’s un- or
under-employment threatens perceptions of his masculinity
(e.g., Seccombe 1986; Smithson et al. 2004). Nock (1998)
identified three primary social roles associated with
masculinity that stem from the male as breadwinner model,
such that husbands are: (a) fathers to their wives’ children,
(b) providers for their families, and (c) protectors of their
wives and children. Ehrenreich (1983) noted that during the
male breadwinner model’s heyday a male who “failed to
achieve this role was either not fully adult or not fully
masculine” (p. 20). A wife as breadwinner challenges a
male’s ability to fulfill Nock’s last two social roles and
therefore, challenges his masculinity.
These gendered expectations explain why researchers have
found families working hard to (re)build the husband’s self-
image when this traditional role is threatened or eliminated.
Research from Belgium, Canada, and the U.S. has considered
the struggles families and particularly fathers face regarding
their participation in the discursive construction of the
husband’s masculinity when he is no longer the primary
breadwinner for their family unit (Buzzanell and Turner 2003;
Doucet and Merla 2007). Buzzanell and Turner (2003) found
that after a husband’s job loss, families worked to discur-
sively construct and maintain a sense of normalcy (family
life as it was prior to the job loss) and particularly a sense of
the male as the breadwinner. These articulations of role
sameness came even as their lives were materially altered in
significant ways, with the wife and children technically
fulfilling the breadwinner role.
The Rise of the Female Breadwinner
Challenges to traditional gender roles may be increasing
since in the U.S. and other economically developed nations
the household breadwinner role is shifting away from the
sole male breadwinner model. While only a third of U.S.
households fit this male breadwinner model, nearly another
third have a female as the primary or sole breadwinner
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004, 2008). The recession
that began in 2008 is accelerating this shift as layoffs of
highly paid husbands result in households where the lower
salaried wife unexpectedly is the only one working outside
the home (May 2009). FBWs are more common in the U.S.
than elsewhere in industrialized society, but the numbers
also are increasing in other countries. For example, research
from the U.K. indicates that at least 11% of wives outearn
their husbands and that the number could rise to 25% by
2030 (National Savings and Investments 2007; Willmott
and Nelson 2003).
3
As the statistics indicate, the reality of the female as
breadwinner is here, and scholars and laypersons are now
seeking to better understand this reality, its causes, and its
influences (e.g., Minetor 2002; Pappenheim and Graves
2005; Stamp 1985). Early descriptive research on wives as
senior partners (WASPs) found that WASP marriages in a
major U.S. city tended to have wives working in traditionally
male fields, husbands with flexible jobs, and no children
(Atkinson and Boles 1984). In trying to understand why
FBW households exist, Drago et al. (2005) made distinctions
among (a) temporary, (b) permanent economically-
motivated, and (c) permanent pursuit-of-equity-motivated
FBW households in Australia. They found that 70% of the
permanent FBW households existed due to economic limits
and opportunities rather than a desire for equity among both
partners, leaving open the possibility that one or both
partners might desire to return to the traditional male
breadwinner model.
In terms of influences of FBWs, other scholars have
been investigating how the shift in breadwinning roles
impacts labor division in the home. Research in the U.S.
has found that when a husband is economically dependent
on his wife, over time he actually does less housework than
before (Brines 1994). Similarly, Bittman et al. (2003) found
that when wives in Australia and the U.S. earn 51–100% of
household income, the couple tends to retain or return to
the traditional gendered divisions of home labor.
These changing realities can have both short and long term
practical consequences for families and the perceptions,
identities, and actions of both partners. For example, one
study suggests that FBWs are more likely to be abused by
their husbands than stay at home moms (Atkinson et al. 2005).
Furthermore, these issues may influence individuals’ identi-
ties, the experience of marriage, and the policies related to
family, organizational, and cultural life. Finally, depending
on how such experiences are supported and managed,
individuals may make career and family choices that avoid
or move toward the FBW model. The studies reviewed thus
far have used demographic and survey data to learn details
about some of the behaviors of FBW couples, but have not
focused on the communicative construction of identities that
are tied up in these labor divisions. The following section
considers how breadwinning relates to identities and gen-
dered identities in particular.
Gendered Identity Constructions
According to social identity theory (SIT), one’s sense of self
consists of personal and social identities, where personal
identities consist of characteristics and individual traits, and
social identities represent identification with various groups in
society (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Tajfel and Turner 1985).
These identities are constructed through a combination of
4 Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
biological characteristics, material realities, and social inter-
actions (Carbaugh 1996). Ashcraft and Mumby (2004)
argued that gender is an essential basic element of the
communication through which identities are constructed,
making gender a fundamental element of identities. Further-
more, the clear distinction between personal and social
identities that was assumed in early SIT research is being
challenged as scholars consider the mutual influence of
personal characteristics and social group identities and roles
(Alvesson et al. 2008). Thus, the current paper explores
how one’s physical sex (a personal characteristic) and
socially constructed gender (a social identity) may
intersect in meaningful, powerful, and tension-filled
ways with one’s discursively articulated experience in
family and occupational roles.
In particular, work and family are major domains that can
generate tensions in one’s quest for a positive sense of self
(Buzzanell et al. 2005). For example, scholars have
investigated how working moms face a number of gendered
identity tensions, such as the contrast between pressures to
live up to “intensive mothering” norms and “ideal worker”
norms simultaneously (Buzzanell et al. 2005; Hays 1996;
Johnston and Swanson 2007; Williams 2000). Identity
issues also potentially arise as women take on the role of
the primary breadwinner in their households, whether there
are children in the home or not. Yet, these FBW issues have
not yet been explored as much and rarely through a
communicative lens.
In their interview-based project with FBWs and stay at home
dads in one metropolitan area in the U.S., Medved and Rawlins
(2007) addressed how the FBW phenomenon impacts
couples’ discursive management of money and housework.
They found five different stances couples took on a
homemaking-moneymaking marital continuum (HMMC) in
interpreting their roles. Couples’ stances ranged from main-
taining traditional gendered expectations and describing
themselves as temporarily reversing them to actively disavow-
ing the traditional expectations. In terms of gendered
identities, their findings revealed some men (re)asserting a
traditional masculine identity through discussion of extra work
they were doing in or outside the home. The researchers also
found both partners constructing their gendered roles as co-
parents. However there is little, if any, discussion of the
women’s talk about and construction of their individual
gendered identities within these work-family arrangements.
Indeed, most of the research on gendered identities and
breadwinning has focused on how societal expectation shifts
have impacted masculinity. Challenges to the male breadwin-
ner model have implications for the construction and
perception of masculinity that have scholars calling for
investigation and empirical studies of social constructions of
masculinity (e.g., Edley and Wetherell 1997; Marsiglio and
Pleck 2005; Mumby 1998). Scholars have started answering
these calls with studies on the identity negotiations of stay at
home fathers and working fathers (Buzzanell and Duckworth
2007; Cripe 2007; Duckworth and Buzzanell 2009; Petroski
and Edley 2006). Some of these studies have considered the
influence of FBWs on identity negotiation, yet the tendency
has been to focus more on the male’s or the couples’
identities rather than on the FBW’s. Research on the impact
of the breadwinner model shift on men is important, yet
scholars have neglected and even directly questioned the
idea that such shifts might be as complex and important for
women and their sense of femininity and identity (e.g.,
Ehrenreich 1983; Nock 1998).
When considering the potential importance of FBWs’
identities in particular, issues of stereotypes and power are
highly relevant. First, scholars need to address the impact of
this role on women and their identity negotiations because
gender norms and stereotypes generate expectations that are
likely to fundamentally alter the experience into something
that is different from men’s experiences as breadwinners.
Gender stereotypes describe and strongly prescribe expected
and acceptable behaviors for individuals (e.g., Brescoll and
Uhlmann 2005; Heilman 2001; Prentice and Carranza 2002)
and a number of scholars have noted the gendered nature of
the breadwinner role (e.g., Deutsch and Saxon 1998;
Potuchek 1992; Thompson and Walker 1995). Potuchek
(1992) explored how wives in dual earner couples in New
England attached gendered meanings to breadwinning,
finding that the most common orientation to the concept
upheld the stereotypically male nature of breadwinning.
However, only three percent of her respondents were from
families that had a FBW. Regarding women’s participation in
full-time paid work, Prentice and Carranza (2002) found that
as a result of gender stereotypes, women in the paid
workforce face competing role demands that men do not.
They found that society expects women to have certain
personal qualities (e.g., cheerfulness, interested in children)
that often are not the same ones that they need to perform
their work roles. In contrast, for men the personal quality
expectations align with the work role quality expectations.
Thus, gender stereotypes and breadwinning may generate
more tensions for women than for men.
Similarly, the shifting standards pattern suggests that
gender stereotyping impacts externally anchored measures of
role accomplishment more than it impacts internal measures
(Biernat and Fuegen 2001). For example, women in
leadership roles tend to be ranked lower than males in
leadership roles when compared directly to each other (an
external measure), but these women will be ranked similarly
to men or even more favorably than men in terms of their job
talent on a non-comparative, needs improvement to out-
standing (internal measure) scale. The external ranking score
was thus influenced by factors beyond individuals’ talent at
the job, and Biernat et al. (1998) suggested that gender was
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
the deciding factor. The implication of this research for
breadwinning is that gender may well influence how publics
view women in a traditionally male role. Thus, because they
are women in the masculine public sphere, FBWs are likely
to be evaluated less favorably than male breadwinners. This
outcome in turn may influence the experiences and identity
negotiations of FBWs.
Second and related to gender stereotypes are the issues
of power, control, and status in the experiences of FBWs.
Research has indicated that breadwinning accords both
higher status and power to married men (Ferree 1990).
Much less is known about whether and how this role might
generate similar conditions for women. Brescoll and
Uhlmann (2005) found that, in a study based in Connect-
icut, employed mothers were rated as having levels of
social regard that were equivalent to the rating levels
received by traditional parents. They surmised that these
women may have been benefitting from higher status levels
associated with the breadwinning role. The conveyance of
this social regard benefit across gender lines may stem from
societal acceptance of females pursuing stereotypically
higher status male pursuits (Diekman and Eagly 2000;
Diekman and Goodfriend 2006; Twenge 2009).
However, Tichenor (2005) argued that past research
indicates that a wife’s participation in full-time work and/or
the higher status role of breadwinner will not necessarily
translate into more power for her, at least within her
marriage. Basic exchange theories that predict that as a
woman brings in more economic resources into the
household, her power in such matters like getting her partner
to do more housework would increase, do not successfully
reflect what actually happens. In their survey-based research,
Bittman et al. (2003) found that “gender trumps money”
such that gender stereotypes and expectations often over-
whelm basic economic power exchange models, with the
result that FBWs still might be doing the majority of the
housework (p. 209). A study comparing women’s work-life
issues in China, England, Japan, and the U.S. found that
wives being full-time employees was associated with higher
participation by men in household work and women having
more say in household decision making (Stockman et al.
1995). Yet, the researchers stressed that the woman’s full-time
employment status did not mean that she had more power in
decision making than her male partner did and that the results
showed that women still tended to do more domestic and
overall work than their male partners. In the main exploratory
study focusing on FBWs as individuals, Stamp (1985)
researched men and women in FBW couples from rural
Northwest England. She found distinct financial manage-
ment patterns and a tendency for the woman to concede
power to the man by minimizing her power opportunities
and privileges, while taking on a sense of responsibility and
worry often associated with the breadwinner role.
5
Tichenor’s (2005) study of FBW couples in one U.S.
metropolitan area helpfully explains how this deferral of the
wife’s power and maintenance of the husband’s power is
accomplished through three processes: 1) co-construction of
the woman as homemaker and husband as breadwinner, 2)
reproduction of the male as dominant decision maker, and 3)
disruption of the link between money and power for
women, while maintaining the potential of the link for
men. Tichenor did not report the women saying that they
enjoyed a sense of increased power or control associated
with their breadwinner role.
However, these women’s discussion of power issues was
likely influenced by two factors related to the data collection
procedure. First, the wives knew that the researcher would
know and interview their husbands, perhaps triggering a
public performance of socially desirable behavior and
attitudes. Second, the interviews with the FBWs typically
were conducted immediately prior to or following an
interview with the husband in their own homes, such that
the men might have been able to hear the interview itself.
Therefore, while the method suited Tichenor’s goal of
understanding how these couples’ discursively co-construct
traditional power relations, that same method might discour-
age FBWs from discursively claiming any sense of empow-
erment or independence that might challenge traditional
gender norms and ideologies.
Summary and Research Questions
Overall, research on FBWs typically has focused on the
phenomenon’s impact on the couples and families (Buzzanell
and Turner 2003; Drago et al. 2005; Medved and Rawlins
2007; Tichenor 2005) or has highlighted the impact of FBWs
on the husband and his identity (Nock 1998; Winter and
Pauwels 2006). Existing research reveals the potential for
new and challenging experiences for women who are the
primary breadwinners in their families. Yet, these potentially
unique experiences are under-acknowledged and under-
studied in existing breadwinner research. No study has
focused solely on how FBWs across the U.S. individually
experience and talk about these experiences and identity
negotiations. Given the role’s rising prominence in society
and its potential impact on a woman’s sense of empower-
ment, her physical health, her husband, her family, and
broader organizational policies, the way has been paved for
research on the lived experiences and gendered identities of
FBWs. Thus, this project asks:
RQ1: What are the essential, common elements of the
experience of being a female breadwinner in the
eastern and midwestern U.S.?
RQ2: How do FBWs discursively construct their
gendered identities?
6 Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19

Method
This project uses a phenomenological methodology to shed
light on FBWs’ articulation of the essential elements of their
experience as breadwinners. If the goal is to better understand
individuals’ lived experience of a particular situation, such as
being a FBW, a phenomenological approach is ideal.
Phenomenology is a human science that requires “systematic,
explicit, self-critical, and intersubjective study” of conscious,
lived experiences (Van Manen 1990, p. 11). It is a science
though that does not seek to explain or control the world as
much as it attempts to bring readers closer to the experience.
A phenomenological study describes the meaning individu-
als have of their lived experiences of a phenomenon, that is,
it describes the commonalities of their experiences (Creswell
2007). In this project, in-depth interviews with 15 FBWs
were used to identify themes and patterns common to all
participants, suggesting the essence of the experience of the
FBW phenomenon.
Participants
Participants were 15 women who were currently or who
within the previous 3 months had been the primary source
of income in their family (see Table 1). They lived in ten
different states (FL, IN, MA, MI, MN, MO, NC, PA, VA,
WI, and WV). They indicated that they earned between
55% and 89% (average=70%) of the household income.
Household incomes ranged from $49,000 to $150,000, with
an average household income of $103,000. All participants
were married or engaged and living with a male partner.
Nine participants had children (5 had 1 child, 4 had 2 or
more children), one was pregnant with her first child at the
time of the interview, and five did not have children. They
worked in professional occupations and held a variety of
positions, including: accountant, college professor, market-
ing manager, nonprofit CEO, and director of food and
beverage at a resort. All of the women had some form of
higher education ranging from an associate’s degree to a
Ph.D. Five participants had a bachelor’s degree only, while
the majority of participants (n=8) also had a masters or
other advanced degree. Participants were between 26 and
63 years old with an average age of 37. Eleven women
were European American, two were African American, and
one was Asian/Chinese American. Six participants were
married to men from racial or ethnic backgrounds that
differed from their own. Eleven participants met Drago
et al.’s (2005) definition of being a permanent breadwinner.
Procedures
Data Collection
Participants were recruited through both personal contacts and
a posting on an electronic bulletin board run by a financial
website for women who are interested in managing their own
finances. Individuals were invited to participate in a study
focusing on their experiences as the main source of income for
their household. After agreeing to participate in a phone
interview, all participants filled out a brief demographic form
and signed an informed consent form.
In-depth interviews were conducted via telephone using
a 4 part interview protocol. The protocol generally focused
on participants’: (a) personal history and work-life expect-

Table 1 Female breadwinner demographics.

Pseudonym Age Race/Ethnicity Years Position Breadwinner Her % of Children

(self-label) married type household income

Bella 32 White 8 Operations Manager Temporary 65 1

Jackie 28 White 1.5 University Instructor Permanent 70 None
Martha 46 African American 26 Marketing Manager Permanent 55 3
Maria 40 Black 1 Assistant Professor Permanent 60 None
Shannon 31 Caucasian 7 Controller Permanent 75 1
Elaine 36 Asian/Chinese 11.5 Payment Specialist Permanent 59 2
Emma 30 Caucasian <1 Marketing Manager Permanent 75 Pregnant
Rachel 27 Caucasian 3 Partnership Accountant Permanent 85 1
Lisa 38 Caucasian Engaged English Teacher Temporary 78 6 (3 his, 3 hers)
Carrie 38 White 7 Director of Food and Beverage Permanent 65 3
Jan 36 White <1 Assistant Professor Temporary 85 None
Gail 48 White 7 Account Executive Permanent 60 1
Suzy 26 White 1.5 Senior Associate Auditor Temporary 65 None
Diana 28 Caucasian 5 Human Resources Consultant Permanent 75 None
Felicity 63 White 40 Nonprofit CEO Permanent 89 2
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
ations (e.g., What expectations did you have about your
career while growing up?), (b) how they became a
breadwinner (e.g., Describe how you became the main
source of income for your family.), (c) their experiences as
the breadwinner (e.g., How do you feel about this income
arrangement? How has it affected your partner’s sense of
masculinity? How has it affected your sense of femininity?),
and (d) describing the transition to a new situation, if they no
longer were the primary breadwinner.
The interviews ranged in length from 34 to 82 min with an
average length of 52 min. Interviews were audio recorded,
transcribed verbatim, and verified, producing 315 single-
spaced pages of text. Pseudonyms were assigned and all
identifying information was removed from the transcripts
before they were uploaded to atlas.ti data analysis software.
Data Analytic Technique
In order to gain understanding and allow for interpretation
of these women’s experiences of breadwinning and identity
negotiation, a thematic analysis was conducted on the data.
First, the author read through all of the transcripts
repeatedly to get a sense of the data. Then, initial line by
line coding was used in which the author described the
content of each passage in each interview. Given the
phenomenological focus, significant passages from each
transcript that related to how each individual experienced
being a breadwinner were then identified (Creswell 2007).
Examples of initial codes include “worrying”, “desiring
control”, and “changing jobs.” Thematic analysis continued
by categorizing all of the significant passages and discov-
ering relations among them. This process involves a
reduction of the data (Lindlof 1995), and it initially
generated 63 codes in 625 passages in the data. Using
atlas.ti qualitative data management software, the author
was able to further combine and subdivide codes as she
worked through the data. As an example of combining
codes, initial coding categories of “being a planner”, “being
taken/taking care of”, “decision making”, “desiring con-
trol”, “empowerment”, “managing housework”, and “man-
aging money” were combined into the theme of control.
Once this new category of control was created, all
transcripts were re-read seeking any other passages that fit
the new category (five were found and coded as control).
Codes were also subdivided as needed, such as when the
“ambition” code was subdivided to differentiate participants
who described themselves as more ambitious than their
partners. The author continued to re-read the full transcripts
throughout this process, seeking examples and counter-
examples of the emerging themes.
At the end of this process, there were four themes that
were present in 100% of the interviews and represented
58% of all coded data. Two additional themes were present
7
in 60 to 80% of the interviews and represented an
additional 12% of the data. Remaining themes were
expressed by a minority of study participants. The six
themes presented in these results represent 70% of all coded
data and suggest a common essence of being a female
breadwinner in the midwestern and eastern U.S.
Verification
Verification is a valuable part of the qualitative research
process. Creswell (2007) argued that rigorous qualitative
research will use at least two forms of validation. In the
current study, there are three forms of validation offered for
the findings. First, the author engaged in in-depth member
checking. This method (sharing results with participants and
asking for feedback on how the results do or do not reflect the
participants’ perceptions) is an accepted source of validity
checking in phenomenological work (Bronfenbrenner 1976)
and is frequently used in qualitative studies (e.g., Bergen
et al. 2007; Dougherty and Drumheller 2006; Toller 2008).
Member checking can range from presenting findings to one
or two participants (Dougherty 2001), to a percentage (Toller
2008), to each participant.
In the current study, the author shared both the paper
abstract and the full initial write-up of the results with each
study participant via email. Six participants (40%)
responded via email with feedback to the researcher. Rachel
responded that the struggles over housework were a key
element in her experience that felt underrepresented in the
findings, leading the author to enhance coverage of these
struggles in the results. Furthermore as is mentioned in the
results, she felt that part of the control theme for her is how
her husband sometimes during fights accuses her of
controlling him, even though she sees herself as offering
to involve him in all decisions. Emma noted that she and
her partner had worked through some of the budgeting
issues she was experiencing at the time of the interview, but
also noted that with the economic downturn her sense of the
pressure of her role as the breadwinner had increased. All
other elements of the responses (e.g., “excellent reflection
of my experiences”, “yes, they do match with what I think I
shared with you and I still do feel the way I did when we
did the interview.”) indicated that participants felt the
results fully represented the essence of their experience.
The other two methods of validation in this study are the
use of thick description and careful attention to thematic
outliers. For thick description, the results section presents in-
depth quotes and contextual details to generate rich, detailed
descriptions of the results via the participants’ words and
lives. This style of results write-up allows readers to evaluate
the validity and transferability of the findings for themselves
(Creswell 2007). Finally, while four of the categories were
represented in 100% of the participant interviews, the few
8 Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
outliers in the other two themes were closely attended to and
discussed as a potential source of increased understanding
and strengthening of the findings, rather than as exceptions
that should be ignored (Miles and Huberman 1984).
Results
The phenomenological analysis revealed six essential
themes in the data. These themes express the essence of
the female breadwinning experience for these women
(RQ1) and speak to their gendered identity negotiations
(RQ2). Four of the themes were expressed by all partic-
ipants. The remaining two themes were expressed by over
half of the participants, and in both of these themes careful
attention is paid to outliers. The six themes are (a) having
control (100%), (b) valuing independence (100%), (c)
feeling pressure, stress, and worry (100%), (d) valuing
partner’s contributions (100%), (e) feeling guilt and
resentment (60%), and (f) valuing career progress (80%).
Having (Not Wanting?) Control
Being a breadwinner as defined in this study means
providing the majority of the household’s income to the
family. All study participants expressed that this material
reality had noticeable implications for issues of control and
power in their lives. Participants did not all feel the same
about having control, but having at least an opportunity for
enacting a lot of financial and decision making control is a
key part of the experience of being a female breadwinner.
Nine of the participants (60%) said that they enjoyed this
element of their experience. Jan, a university professor,
found it empowering: “it reinforces, you know, the ‘a
woman can do anything,’.... I feel stronger and more
capable and more [PAUSE] like, ‘Fuck you, world, if you
can’t take it.’” Suzy, an auditor who was married to an
architect, felt similarly, but clarified that she had not
intentionally pursued her empowerment:
I find it’s kind of empowering. I - and this - this is
just, um, it’s not something that I’m like, “Oh, I want
to be in finance because I’ll make tons and tons of
money,” ... this is just how I feel now that I’m in it.
Both of these quotes indicate awareness of how this power
challenges gender identity norms. Jan directly challenges
anyone “can’t take it”, while Suzy qualifies her statement
by making sure the interviewer knows that she did not
engage in any (masculine) pursuit of power.
While only those two participants spoke of breadwinning
as empowering, seven other women acknowledged a desire
for and/or appreciation of having control. Women described
the access to control as the reason why they would choose to
be a breadwinner (“I guess it comes down to control....Just
having - having that control and being in control.”-Jackie) and
often as their favorite thing about their breadwinner role
(“What I like most about it, I like that I have some measure of
control, in that I don’t have to worry about the finances.”-
Maria). Jan, whose husband worked a variety of low wage
jobs and was returning to school, confessed:
the very - I’ll say the - the dirty, the dark side of it, I
guess I feel like I get to have more say in how things
are spent. I don’t know that that’s necessarily fair in a
marriage. But it’s certainly the way I operate and I
think I like it [LAUGHS].
Jan then addressed how her valuing and enjoyment of
control violates societal expectations:
I’ve gotten this [desire] from my father. He definitely
instilled in my sister and I the notion of being control
freaks [LAUGHS] ....which, you know, if it was a man,
most times we wouldn’t even recognize it as being a
control freak. It’s just what we expect men to do is to
know about the finances and take care of the finances
and - and that kinda stuff. Um, but as a woman, I think
there’s - you know, I - I - certainly I put [out] that
stereotype of, “Oh, no, I’m just a control freak.”
Thus, Jan acknowledged that women being in control is
not normal in her dominant societal discourse, but that
being in control is part of her identity, and a part that is
informed by a gendered “control freak” stereotype. Rachel,
whose family earned less than $50,000, also saw and yet
appreciated how the control she has makes her different
from another gender stereotype:
I feel like I have a lot more control than, you know,
the - the traditional like ’50s sitcom housewife whose
husband hands her, you know, money in an envelope
and says, “Support the family for a week.”
However, in the member checking process, Rachel lament-
ed that during arguments, her husband would complain that
she was controlling his life, in essence inverting the
housewife stereotype.
Other women also experienced conflicts over how far their
control extended into family decision making. Emma, a
marketing manager pregnant with her first child, recounted:
I like to eat out at restaurants every once in awhile,
and I’m willing to pay for it. [My husband] felt like
he couldn’t keep up with that, cause we were living
two different lifestyles in the same house....[I’d say]
“Oh, let’s go here, let’s go there,” and he’d be like, “I
can’t afford it.”.... And I think it felt like to him, “hey,
you know, I’m living off of nothing and you’re in all
this control” so that was eye opening for me.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
Thus, the experience of control, while enjoyable to many,
also creates tensions that impact their lives. Lisa described her
concern about telling her fiancé that she had purchased health
insurance for him because she “didn’t want him to feel like I
was just being overbearing.” Shannon, who was married to a
part time youth minister, recognized the strength of her status,
but at the same time, she was uncomfortable with the
implications for her husband:
I know this sounds, um, not- really bad, but it’s not
empowering, I don’t want to say-, because I don’t
want to have control over my husband. He and I - I
love him. He’s, he’s wonderful. But I don’t have a
problem with it. I feel, um, like a stronger woman.
Breadwinning builds her gendered identity as a strong
woman, but the idea of having control over her husband is
uncomfortable.
Housework represents an interesting juxtaposition of
control. On one level, participants described retaining control
over housework, in that they typically are in charge of and
have responsibility for the housework (“There’s really no
managing, I just pretty much do the household chores”-
Shannon). They talked about their partners contributing, but
almost always in response to being asked or told to do the task
by the wife (“I just have to ask because, I mean he’s a man,
and they don’t see that there’s a mess [LAUGHS].” -Emma).
The need to ask for help highlights the other side of
housework control, that the FBWs did not articulate an
ability to choose how housework was managed. Rachel,
Felicity, and others experienced frustration over how the
men would perform household tasks. Most wanted more
help and housework initiative from their partners, but as
Carrie, who worked as a director of food and beverage and
whose husband is from the Virgin Islands, noted: “[My
husband’s] a guy. He picks and chooses what chores he
does.” Thus, FBWs may see themselves as having
responsibility for and control over housework, but not
necessarily wanting that control. In other words, they
describe themselves as having control over housework,
but not control over whether they have this responsibility. It
is also worth noting that both Emma and Carrie’s examples
explicitly refer to the gender of their partners. By gendering
their partners’ behavior, they are also gendering their own.
Bella, an operations manager, discussed this gendered
element of housework explicitly:
There were actually two completely separate sets of
gender identities, um, sort of put in front of me [while
growing up]. One of them was that uh, I would marry
someone and stay home and take care of the household,
um. —Exclusively you know that was sort of the thing
to aspire to, was to be sort of a middle class mom and
stay home. The other gender role that I ultimately
9
decided was for me, was that I would work and work
outside the home and um, have children, but ...
definitely in both those scenarios, the majority of the
housework was definitely my job. LAUGHS
All of her identity options leave her “in control” of the
housework. Interestingly, five of the six participants who
did not express a desire for control (including both Emma
and Carrie), described themselves as doing more house-
work than their partners, whereas many of those who
expressed enjoying the control were also describing a more
equitable distribution of housework.
Valuing Independence
While participants varied in how they felt about the control
and empowerment potential of breadwinning, they consis-
tently valued independence as part of their identities. Every
study participant described herself as independent, usually
at multiple points in the interview:
I’m just very, very independent, and I’m just glad that ...I
have the ability to do this to provide for my family and to
take care of other needs outside in the community. (Gail)
I can’t even imagine not being - I can’t imagine being
dependant. I know how to turn on the dependency and
make it look like I’m dependant if I need something, you
know, but that’s a marriage thing. [LAUGHS] (Martha)
Typically, they mentioned how they had been encouraged
by parents or found motivation to be independent and self-
supporting from a young age. For example, Shannon said:
“my thing was I was always going to be, I was going to college
and I was gonna do this, and I was gonna do that and make
money, and support myself. So I was very, my parents taught
me to be very independent.” Elaine, an Asian American, noted
that her family situation required independence:
I’ve always been very independent, and part of it [is]
just, you know, my parents not being native to this
country, having the language barrier. So growing up,
um, my sister and I handled a lot of the sort of, adult type
things early on.
In many cases participants attributed how much they valued
and identified with independence to a negative example they
or their relatives saw while growing up. Rachel said:
I liked the idea of being able to go out and - and
support a family so that - you know, I watched my
dad go through a divorce.... he’s going through a
second divorce now and... every time, the woman he’s
with has no job, and I always liked the idea of, you
know, even if I did get married and my marriage fell
apart, I would still be okay.
10
Overall, women repeatedly mentioned how they valued
their financial independence. Lisa summed up many
participants’ reasoning when she explained how she valued
that “if something happened in the relationship or, God
forbid, that, you know, he were killed or something like
that — [Interviewer: Uh-hm.] — I know I could take care
of myself.” Their breadwinner status meant they main-
tained a sense of independence that could help them in
rough times.
Feeling Pressure, Stress, and Worry
While they all valued their independence, on the
downside, all of the participants felt keenly how
breadwinning also meant experiencing pressure, stress,
and/or worry. Participants spoke about this pressure as
their least favorite aspect of being the primary bread-
winner for their families (“It’s a stressor”-Rachel). Jan
indicated that she would not choose to be the breadwin-
ner (“It’s a lotta pressure. It’s a lotta pressure.”), and
indeed she shared that she expects/hopes her husband
will begin earning more money than she does once he
finishes his new degree. Her reasoning for her preference
invokes the pressure of being the wage earner:
while it’s nice to know where the money’s coming
from and that we can - we can pay things or we can’t
pay things, um, that pressure and stress of knowing
that I’ve gotta be the one to bring in enough so that
we can keep a - a roof over our heads...overrides it.
FBWs also experience worry about what will happen to
their families if they lose their jobs or become disabled. For
example, Lisa, a secondary school teacher, said:
[What] I’m slightly insecure about is, I guess being
the breadwinner and knowing that the other person
isn’t equal in income....I get a little antsy sometimes,
especially not being tenured yet. You know, the bag
lady syndrome. What would happen if I lost my job
type of deal [LAUGHS]....So there’s that - that little
bit of insecurity there. I don’t let it overwhelm me but
I do think about it from time to time.
Limited choices (about childcare and jobs in particular)
are a big part of the pressure that these women experience.
Emma talked clearly about how the pressure and choices
experienced as a female breadwinner may be different from
those experienced by male breadwinners:
Emma: And there’s that certain pressure when you’re
the primary breadwinner where you just need to really
stay focused on your career and you can’t screw up
because you’ve got people counting on you....And
that’s not a bad thing, I mean, it’s just, it’s a fact.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
Interviewer: ...generations of men have felt that
pressure and....do you think it’s any different being
... the female in that role and feeling that pressure?
[Than] Being your dad?
Emma: Definitely. Because there’s not that guilt that’s
added on by your friends that go, “Oh, you’re
working, well, what are you going to do about the
baby?” Well, the baby’ll be fine. My husband’s, you
know, he’s home. I mean, he was talking about being
a stay at home dad between the time the baby was
born and going to nursing school. And I was like, oh,
that’s really nice, but does kind of sound like, well,
you should really be the one who’s at home? .... yeah,
in an ideal world, I’d be a multi millionaire and I
wouldn’t have to work.
Thus, Emma, who had been the primary breadwinner in
her family for 3 years and was pregnant at the time of the
interview, described a pressure to not screw up in her job,
and implied that this pressure is somehow different and
more complicated than if she were single and/or a man. The
complication is a cultural expectation that she will be taking
care of her child by staying home, trapping her between the
pressure to earn money and the pressure to personally raise
her child. Elaine echoed Emma’s concerns, succinctly
saying “we all kinda have, you know — hate being the
breadwinner, I mean, just cause your choices are limited
and you have the mommy guilt complex.” Suzy noted that
in talking about having children she and her husband have
realized: “it wouldn’t make sense for me to - to quit my job
and stay home. Because I don’t think we can afford it.” So
breadwinner status had eliminated her ability to choose to
stay home.
In addition to childcare choices, the women described
other ways in which job choices were affected (“if I ever
wanted to walk away from this, I couldn’t”-Elaine). Carrie
shared: “it puts a lot of pressure on me, .... I’ve recently
been looking for a job. I have to be more particular about
the kind of job that I’m looking for when I feel like ... it
rests on my shoulders.” Diana, a human resources consul-
tant who is married to a police officer, described both the
job pressure and a different job choice that her breadwinner
status takes away from her:
it’s an immense amount of pressure on me to be a
very high performer at work so that I can with 100%
certainty maintain either my employment here or my
employability at the same level in another organiza-
tion....It’s an immense amount of pressure, and - and
the other thing that it does is it - it dissuades me from
going out and finding a job that probably would suit
my passions more because my passion lies in areas
that don’t pay.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
Thus, her breadwinner status motivates her to work even
harder than before in a career track that does not match her
passions. Being the breadwinner opens up certain freedoms
for these women, but they also perceive that it takes away
options that are traditionally feminine, and brings on the
pressure to provide.
Valuing Partner’s Contributions
The fourth major theme of the FBW’s experience involves
valuing her partner’s contributions. All participants articu-
lated this theme, and all but two suggested that their
partners were making these valued contributions. In talking
about what she wants from a partner, Jackie noted what so
many of these women valued in their husbands:
I never really thought about income as much as I
wanted somebody who was just supportive of me in -
in my career goals, and the things that I wanted to do,
and that sort of thing. I don’t think that - I don’t- the
financial issue I ever really thought about. I just
wanted somebody who would - who would be
supportive of me in other ways.
In five interviews, this valuing of partner contributions
involved participants playing with, challenging, or rejecting
the traditional breadwinner label and definition. Martha said:
the meaning has changed to me, over the years. I really
think when we first started out as a couple I probably
thought it was the person that um, makes the most
money in the household.... And I think now it’s kind of
morphed into whoever contributes to the household....
Are you gonna beautify it, you gonna clean it, are you
gonna put food in it, you know are you gonna pay the
mortgage, are you gonna pay the electric? - I mean, it’s a
whole thing.... it’s just a whole, uh, a lot bigger to me
than just money these days.
Shannon denied her claim to the breadwinner role as part of
her identity:
yes, financially I bring home more money, but I, you
know, he and I have a great relationship, and it’s
definitely,... I don’t feel like I contribute more to the
relationship or our family than he does. So I don’t
think of me as being the breadwinner. Yes, I bring
home more money so that we can have, you know, a
house and everything that we have. But, you know,
it’s definitely 50/50. I feel like it’s 50/50 in our
relationship.
Alternately, five other participants described explaining
to or showing their male partners how they (the males) are
contributing to the family even though they earn less
11
money. Jan is one of several women who had difficulty in
getting her husband to accept his contributions as valued:
he felt like he wasn’t contributing to society at all ....
because he - his hours had been cut so much at the store
he was working at that ... he couldn’t understand how
him cooking and cleaning and taking - doing the
shopping and, um, taking my car in to get the oil changed
and stuff, how that all was taking such a load off of me.
She advised FBWs to remind:
the other person what amazing contributions they
make. You know, when Mike’s always like, “...you do
so much. I don’t do anything,” I’m like, “Are you
kidding me?...I regularly grew mold on my dishes in
the sink.... I’ve thrown away a lotta dishes ’cause I
couldn’t even stand to clean them. Like I - I can’t do
these things by myself”.... And he’s like, “Oh, okay.”
You know, [LAUGHS] it makes him feel good. I’m
like, “You - you undervalue what you’ve done for this
house.... we can’t put a monetary value on it, but I - if
my happiness means anything to you [LAUGHS], it
makes me so much happier.”
Other participants reported similar stories, such as Emma
describing how bill paying is arranged so that her husband
can see how he is contributing financially: “it makes him
feel like he’s contributing, like he’s a [PAUSE] financial
partner by paying utilities. So he does that, and I just pay
the mortgage cause it’s, it’s comfortable and within my
salary range just to pay it.” The FBWs use words and
behaviors to convey how they value their partners’
contributions.
In two instances though, the participants expressed
valuing partner contributions yet struggling with needing
and wanting their partners to do more than they were.
Rachel got to the point where she needed her husband to be
working at least a part time job to make ends meet:
Rachel: I felt like I was stuck in that position of, you
know, how do - how do I tell him that financially this
family needs him to work but not devalue what he
does by staying at home and parenting our child?
Interviewer: Right. Yeah. That it - did you find any
paths to do that [LAUGHS]?
Rachel: [LAUGHS] Uh, well, being the accountant, I
just showed him numbers. I’m like, “You need to
work [LAUGHS].”
Less lighthearted was Felicity’s situation. Her husband
was a retired health care worker, and Felicity struggled
with the financial burden of being the breadwinner.
While she had hoped to retire at 55, the economy had
12
kept her in and now their savings were sliding downward
with the downturn in the economy. But the idea of her
husband contributing financially was a sore topic:
when we discuss [him returning to paid work], you
know, he’ll say, “But you didn’t work, you know,
uh, there in the early 70s.” Well my God! I was
home with babies. You know, I mean, this is not
analogous! [LAUGHS] This is not the same
situation!
At other times, they disagreed over how her husband
George spent his time:
He enjoys, um, you know, doing metalworking and
he goes to auctions a lot and he buys and sells
things. ... that’s not, I know that he resents me not
seeing that as a job. Um. It’s not a job! You know, I
mean it doesn’t, it doesn’t make money. It’s a
hobby.
Thus, Felicity was struggling to appreciate George’s
contributions to the family. Elsewhere she mentioned how
he drove extended family members to appointments and
shopping trips. But what appears to be lacking was his
contribution to their nuclear family. She was providing for
him, but she struggled to see how he was providing
anything for her. She noted that it is “important from the
beginning to not denigrate the other person’s ability to be
a true partner.” Her issue may be that her partner was not
living up to that ability. Overall, all participants expressed
valuing or being expected to value their partner’s
contributions to the family as a way of helping him
maintain his gender identity.
Feeling Guilt and Resentment
While not explicitly expressed by all participants, moments
of guilt and resentment are also a key part of the experience
of FBWs. Nine (60%) of the participants explicitly talked
about these moments. Emma, who was thinking of the
future in relation to her pregnancy, said “I just have this
huge sense of guilt if I try to find a job that would increase
my travel”: being away from her child for work created
guilt. Later in the interview she noted:
I’ve just felt this overwhelming sense of guilt like,
am I less of a mother, am I less of a woman, a less
of a wife for wanting to pursue this career and you
know, wanting to have this family? Am I selfish for
wanting to have this? And I’ve tried to read a lot of
books, and that’s why I was on that, the [electronic
message] board, just to kind of get some sense that,
you know, I - you can be a good mother and pursue
your career.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
Only Rachel described getting support from her husband
when she had these moments of guilt:
every time that I would get upset and start crying
about feeling like an awful mother for leaving my....
son at home and - and, you know, having to go to
work, [my husband] wouldn’t really say anything.
He’d just kinda wrap his arms around me and tell me
what a wonderful mom he thought I was and what a
great job he thought I was doing and just kinda let me
cry it out and then I’d be okay.
Felicity reflected back on her feelings when her children
were home: “there were so many times when I felt so
guilty.... staying, because a project was really interesting,
not because I really needed to....I don’t know whether men
feel that way or not.”
Sometimes the experience of guilt was accompanied by
a sense of resentment toward their partners. Felicity noted:
I resent the fact that, um... I can, I just sound so
crassly monetary. But, I mean, my peers who have
working wives... are able to do some things that I
would really like to do. Um, because they have more
money coming in. Um, my peers who have non-
working wives have somebody to do all of their
diddle work, you know? I mean like today I need to
on the way home stop and pick up some stuff at the,
at the drugstore, you know. I mean. You know, [my
male co-worker] doesn’t do that, you know? He calls
his wife and she goes and picks them up. You know,
and George would go, but it would be, it wouldn’t be
worth it because I’d have to explain exactly what
brand and, you know, because he doesn’t pay
attention.
She also shared that her family shuts her down if she
expresses her resentments (“Oh, but [he’s] so wonderful,
how can you complain?”). She is being told that she should
not be resentful, but she still feels it, and that feeling is
causing her concern and stress:
Felicity: It’s just, the reason I wanted to participate in
this is that I just ca-, I know in my heart of hearts that,
that this is really my problem. You know? I mean
Interviewer: Mm hmm. In what way?
Felicity: Well, I’m, I’m not, you know, I’m not like
washing windows. I mean, this is a wonderful job. It’s
the best job I’ve ever had. I love it! I love coming to
work every day. Now where’s all this resentment
coming from? [LAUGHS] What’s the deal.... I think I
ought to be able to work this out in my mind. To go
“OK.” You know? “Stop this. This is not good.” And
I don’t feel, I don’t feel that way all the time. You
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
know, it’s not like every day. It just, when it comes it
doesn’t feel real good.
Other women expressed moments of resentment over
large debts their husbands brought into the marriage, their
husband’s lack of contributions to family income, the
division of household chores, and the lack of choices they
had about jobs. These women are struggling with the
intersections of their status as the breadwinner and other
gendered societal expectations.
Six participants (Bella, Gail, Jackie, Maria, Martha, and
Shannon) did not articulate issues with guilt and resent-
ment. Their interviews do not point to one common
characteristic that might explain this difference, nor does a
phenomenological study seek to predict such cause-effect
relations. However, this section offers consideration of
these outliers. Two of these women, Jackie and Maria,
worked in higher education, did not have children, and
described how they knew on the way in and were
comfortable that they would be the breadwinner in their
relationships. Shannon also described knowing at the start
of her marriage that she was probably going to earn more
and being pleased that her husband can be at home with
their daughter. Martha described how her husband had been
the breadwinner in the past, suggesting that it was her turn
for the role. Martha, Jackie, and Bella all talked about
working with their partners as a team. Bella’s teamwork
had led to the end of her primary breadwinner status
1 month before the interview. Finally, Gail earned less than
her husband in base salary, but significantly more in
bonuses, and she described her husband as contributing a
lot to the management of their home.
Valuing Career Progress
The final essential part of these FBW’s experiences is how
they value and achieve career progress and success. Twelve of
the participants (80%) described themselves as ambitious, and
in seven cases as more ambitious and career-focused than their
partners. First, ambition, goal-orientation, and internal drive
were typically experienced and appreciated by these women:
I’ve always just been a really, really hard worker. I
like to set goals, and I like to accomplish things, and I
like to do challenging things. I was always trying to -
to be better at whatever I was doing. (Suzy)
A majority of the women had earned advanced degrees,
and they had often accomplished them part time while
managing other responsibilities. They also valued making
good use of those degrees (“[breadwinning is] tied to, um,
my - my perception of - of self-worth and of using my
education and of making a difference”-Diana). Many of
those who had only one degree talked about pursuing
13
another. For example, Shannon mentioned graduate school,
(“I definitely want to get my masters”) and other options
(“Maybe I’ll own my own business or doing something like
that 1 day.”). They were not afraid of change and new
opportunities (“I like change”-Martha).
The other part of their experience and appreciation of this
internal drive is how seven participants noted that they are
more ambitious than their partners. For example, Gail offered:
[my husband is] more laidback, and I tend to be the
more high-strung one.....But that’s the way too - the
way it is too in our careers. He’s more easily laidback,
politically correct and you know, I just - I do what I
need to do and say what I need to say.
Similarly, Jackie shared that the difference explains why
she is the primary breadwinner:
Even if I take another job and I do take an immediate
pay cut, I can’t imagine that I wouldn’t find myself as
the primary breadwinner once again at some point, um,
just because I’m - I’m really competitive and I am - I
devote a lot of time and energy to my work. Not to say
that - that my husband doesn’t, but I’m definitely more,
uh, work focused or work minded than what he is.
Many of the participants consciously also spent time
encouraging and helping their partners to find and achieve
their own dreams, from writing resumes, to helping them
fill out college applications. Sometimes they expressed
frustration with this ambition difference in their versus their
partners’ identities. One vivid example came from Martha:
[My husband] is a hard worker. He’s dependable,
reliable, the boy scout ...He’s not super ambitious,
though. He’s not - he’s not looking at, “oh, there’s one
rung above me in the career ladder, let me go for that.”
That’s what I do....If he was a little more ambitious, oh
my goodness, where would Tom be today? Wow .... But
he just doesn’t have that kind of drive. He doesn’t want
to put himself out there. I guess I’m a little more risky.
Toward the end of the interview, she added:
I guess at times I think it would be nice if Tom made
uh, his salary was more in line with mine....And that
would make me kind of feel better, cause that’s the
one thing I’ve always wished is that he was just a
little bit more ambitious.
They believe in and love their partners, but for the women
whose husbands do not share their ambition, they some-
times struggled to understand this identity difference.
Carrie and Jan were two similar outliers in this theme who
did not express ambition. Both had more than one degree and
came from families that encouraged them to pursue education.
14
Yet, neither of them expressed a strong sense of personal
career ambitions. Carrie spoke of how she planned to go to a
culinary school near where she lived, but her father stepped in
and convinced her to attend the very best school that she could
get into instead of the local one. She described her husband as
very driven, sharing how his (non-U.S.) citizen status is what
has held him back in terms of career options to this point. In
the near future, Carrie would love to work part-time to better
manage her work and family commitments. Similarly, Jan
shared how she is hoping eventually to remove herself from
the breadwinner role in order to be home with the children she
and her husband want to have.
The third outlier on the ambition element was Elaine. She
described herself as someone who believes in working hard to
reach one’s destiny, so she might be considered internally
driven, but she never described herself as ambitious in her
career and spoke of turning down promotion opportunities
that would have required her to move. Her company had
experienced some changes that created a lot of stress, and she
had recently changed positions in the company to work at a
job that was more enjoyable. She indicated that job stress was
the main reason that “I don’t know that I have any ambition at
this point in time to um advance to any type of management
position in the company.” She also noted that she had hoped
not to be a FBW, but that she was hoping to hang on and retire
from the company she worked for in 15 years.
Discussion
This project has delved into FBWs’ conscious expression of
their own experiences and identities in order to bring scholars
and others closer to the experience and implications of women
fulfilling the role of breadwinner in married opposite-sex
households. In terms of the essential essences of their
experiences as breadwinners (RQ1), participants described
themselves as experiencing (a) opportunities for control, (b)
independence, (c) pressure and worry (d) valuing their
partner’s contributions, (e) guilt and resentment, and (f)
ambition. Within the expression of these experiences, partic-
ipants also provided insight into their gendered identity
negotiations (RQ2). Specifically, the data demonstrate how
their controlling, independent, worried, ambitious, and some-
times guilty and resentful personal identities intersect with
gender and societal discourses. Overall, by focusing on
FBWs’ communication of their experiences’ essential ele-
ments, the findings have several implications for breadwin-
ning, work-family, and identity negotiation research.
Breadwinning and Control
First, essential to participants’ experience was having (but
not necessarily wanting) control. The findings here build on
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
existing research about power in FBW households. Previ-
ous research has highlighted FBWs’ deferral of power to
their husbands (Stamp 1985; Tichenor 2005). However,
while nearly all of the women in the current study struggled
at times with the control opportunities they had, not all of
them deferred or rejected those opportunities. Over half of
the participants (60%) said that they enjoyed the control
they experienced as FBWs. This enjoyment of the control
has not been mentioned or theorized in previous studies and
should be explored further.
One potential explanation is that the women who
expressed enjoying ways in which they have more power
in their relationships than they did before and/or than their
partner’s had currently are rejecting or ignoring the gender
norms that Tichenor (2005) identified as maintaining men’s
relational dominance. Several of these women explicitly
noted how they were happily different from the “50’s
housewife” or even from female friends they saw operating
within the traditional gender norms. In essence, they are
articulating themselves as having accomplished a form of
social mobility (see Tajfel and Turner 1985), that is, they
have moved themselves out of a negatively laden group, in
this case, the housewife. As a result, future research can
explore the extent to which FBWs’ enjoyment of power and
control demonstrates or challenges queen bee theory, in
which women who reach high status positions tend to
denigrate and distance themselves from other women
(Ellemers 2001). Additionally, in contrast to earlier
research, the typical absence of the male partners from the
home when the current interviews were conducted may
have increased these women’s willingness to express
enjoying the power they were experiencing in their
relationships. Future research should consider the presence
of the male partner during interviews and its potential
impact on the performance of identity for FBWs. It would
be useful to interview FBWs’ partners to see if and how
they are aware of their partners’ enjoyment of control and
to investigate how that awareness impacts the couples’
communication and identity negotiations.
Work-Family Research and Control
Researchers want to better understand gendered divisions of
occupational and household labor (Medved 2009). This
study’s findings suggest that dialectical lenses may help
explain how many of the women seemed simultaneously to
be expressing control and lack of control over housework
and other labor decisions (Baxter and Montgomery 1996).
Indeed, FBWs may be interacting with Giddens’ (1984)
dialectic of control, which can show how “forms of
dependence offer some resources whereby those who are
subordinate can influence the activities of their superiors”
(p. 16). Even as financial and household “subordinates”,
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
their husbands may be controlling the actions and lives of
FBWs in important and potentially harmful ways over time.
Thus, longitudinal research on the experience and impact of
dialectical control tensions on FBW’s marriages and
identities is recommended.
Regarding labor division in the home, FBWs often did
not get the partner contributions they needed automatically,
and many described persuasive communication methods
used to obtain desired contributions from their partners.
This element ties into research on how housework and
money are managed among such couples (Medved and
Rawlins 2007; Yodanis and Lauer 2007). Specifically,
Medved and Rawlins’ (2007) five ways that FBW and at-
home father couples manage housework and money are
relevant to these results. The current participants matched
the “conflicting” stance where home tasks are tied to
gendered conceptions, while being complicated by both
partners working in public and the home. At other times
participants spoke of convincing their male partners that
what they were contributing to the household (whether the
contribution was financial, emotional, or physical) was
valuable. It was clear that these women valued and needed
their partners’ non-financial contributions. Tensions arose
when the men did not believe they were valued or when the
FBWs perceived that valued contributions (typically the
management of house work tasks, see also Bolak 1997)
were not being made by the men.
Gendered Identity Negotiations
Finally, the results have implications for studies of men’s
and women’s gendered identity negotiations. Specifically,
the findings demonstrate links among personal identity
characteristics, social identities, and societal discourses
(Alvesson et al. 2008). Even though some participants
sidestepped designation as their family’s breadwinner
during their interview, they all had responded to a study
invitation asking to interview FBWs, suggesting at least
some recognition of a social identity as a FBW. This status
influenced and was influenced by their personal identities
as they identified themselves as in control, independent,
ambitious, worried, and sometimes guilty and resentful. For
example, in several instances they described their indepen-
dent nature as a reason for their FBW status, which in turn
reinforced their self-perception as independent women.
The findings also reveal how both their personal and
social identities are gendered and co-constructed not only
by their partners, but also by broader societal discourses.
First, participants expressed the independence they experi-
enced and desired as tied to their perceptions and
interpretations of the families and particularly the women
around whom they grew up. Typically, they mentioned how
they had been encouraged or found motivation to be
15
independent and self-supporting from a young age, sup-
porting other studies that have found that families of origin
and particularly mothers have a large influence on women’s
work and family identity constructions (Golden 2001;
Johnston et al. 2008; Medved et al. 2006). Many of them
had seen negative consequences of women not having a
sense of and the financial means to maintain their
independence, and at least one participant had recently
read Bennetts’ (2007) book on the dangers of women
lacking financial independence. While financial indepen-
dence may be viewed as a masculine trait, these women
often described themselves as pursuing it because they were
women. Thus, the awareness of and desire for independence is
itself gendered and closely tied to FBW status. In turning to
men, phenomenological studies of male breadwinners should
be conducted to understand how current societal discourses
and gender influence their experience as breadwinners. For
example, the male-as-provider discourse (Warren 2007) is
likely to correspond to male breadwinners expressing
“providing” as a dominant personal identity element.
More specifically, the findings demonstrate how FBWs’
identities can be linked to gendered norms and stereotypes
that are communicated in societal discourses. The valuing
of career progress expressed by these women represents an
inculcation of the masculine ideal worker norm, where
one’s identity is closely tied to job success (Drago 2007).
Yet, one of the consequences of being a mother interacting
with the ideal worker and intensive mothering norms
(Johnston and Swanson 2007; Douglas and Michaels
2004) is the construction of the supermom expectation that
was worrying Emma. Thus, these findings reveal how
stereotypes and norms of the woman as the primary
caregiver create a tension for FBWs to which men likely
are not as susceptible. These tensions impact their experi-
ence and identities such that it is more likely that FBWs
will articulate guilt and resentment than their male counter-
parts. However, as societal expectations of fathers’ involve-
ment in their family lives increase (McBride and Darragh
1995), future research should continue to watch for similar
tensions among male breadwinners.
Broader gender stereotypes are also impacting these
women’s experiences as breadwinners. The shifting stand-
ards research (Biernat and Fuegen 2001) and Eagly and
Karau’s (2002) role congruity theory suggest that perceived
incongruities between women’s gender and leadership roles
can lead to prejudices that evaluate these women less
favorably than men in the same work leadership roles. For
example, Jan noted how society is likely to construct her
power as designating her as a “control freak” in contrast to
it being an accepted status quo for men. Therefore, the
gendered nature of these discourses is at least part of what
can make the FBW’s experience inherently unique from the
male breadwinner’s experience.
16
One interesting possibility for gendered identity research
is that the FBWs’ continued articulation of themselves as
the ones who “see” household messes and needs is a way to
retain claims to an element of a traditional feminine
identity. By highlighting stories of how the men have to
be told or asked to do specific chores in the home, these
FBWs still fit gender boundaries of a wife as someone who
manages the home and children (Buzzanell et al. 2005;
Chapman 2004). They direct the housework done by their
husbands and maintain a sense of control. This path of
expressing control of and responsibility for both home and
paid work may be essential for working moms to manage
competing discourses of ideal worker and intensive
mothering (Johnston and Swanson 2007). This theory gains
credence when considering that all of the women who did
not articulate a strong sense of responsibility for the home
were those who either did not have children or whose
children were 18 or older. For example, Jan, who did not
have children, argued that she had never successfully
managed housework and was grateful to have her husband
take over this process.
Even though the study focused on the woman’s
experience, it became clear that an essential part of a
FBW’s experience is managing the male’s identity by
valuing his household contributions. The importance of the
male’s identity in these women’s experiences fits with and
reflects the fourth element of Warren’s (2007) definition of
a breadwinner: breadwinning as a standard for male
identity. The primacy of the male’s identity in the essence
of the FBW’s experience helps explain why existing FBW
research has focused on the male’s identity and has
overlooked the female’s experience and identity. Even
when these women were discussing being a breadwinner,
they talked about their partners’ identities more easily than
their own. When the participants were explicitly asked how
their breadwinner status influenced their sense of feminin-
ity, they typically hesitated, suggested it had not impacted
it, or that it perhaps made them a stronger woman. Thus,
future research should move beyond the conscious experi-
ence of FBWs to better theorize their identity negotiations.
Potentially fruitful options include critical and feminist
poststructuralist approaches to similar data (e.g., Ashcraft
and Mumby 2004).
Practical Implications
These findings also have a number of practical implications
for individuals, families, and organizational leaders. First
on an individual level, knowing these essential experiences
of FBWs may assist these women in creating and managing
their own identities. Often participants shared that they did
not know any other women in their position, and they were
not sure who knew that they were their household’s primary
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
breadwinner. Several participants asked if there were
electronic message boards for FBWs, and they were
looking forward to seeing these results. Seeing what the
essence of the experience is and what they have in common
with others could help FBWs be prepared for and cope with
the negative aspects of the experience and gain awareness
of the positive elements of this role. Alternately, by
recognizing that if these essential elements of the experi-
ence cannot change and are not desirable to a FBW, the
FBW may gain the motivation necessary to seek ways to
remove herself from the breadwinner role.
Second, FBW couples and families struggling together
with the implications of the FBW model may find this
description of the essence of the female’s experience helpful in
managing their communication patterns. For example, Felicity
and her husband may improve their communication by
understanding how her FBW experience involves valuing
and receiving her husband’s contributions. In fact, during the
member checking process, Felicity indicated that participating
in the interview had motivated her to talk with her husband
about their communication. She felt that that conversation
improved how they relate to each other.
Finally, organizations should implement policies that
recognize that both male and female employees may be the
primary source of income for their households. The challenges
that breadwinner motherhood offers to existing family leave
policies have not been addressed in corporate America. Sloan
Foundation program director, Kathleen Christensen, high-
lighted this problem when she noted in a 2004 interview: “At
root, is the notion that ‘a one-size-fits-all workplace’ may
have worked for a workforce that was comprised of
predominantly male bread-winners. But, ‘a one-size-fits-all
workplace’ does not work for the highly variegated
workforce that we have today.” Understanding how these
women value career progress and independence, and how
many of them are driven to work even harder than they did
before they were moms and breadwinners, should provide
motivation for even for-profit corporations to encourage,
support and find routes for retaining FBWs.
Limitations and Future Directions
This qualitative study has some limitations that can be
addressed in future research. First, this phenomenological
analysis of FBWs has focused on a homogenous sample.
Participants were primarily (n=12) European American
women. Several comments highlighted the need to explore
how issues of race and ethnicity impact FBW’s experiences.
For example, Elaine’s preference to not be the breadwinner
may be connected to the lack of support for her breadwin-
ner role in traditional Chinese culture (Buzzanell et al.
2007), and Martha and Maria’s comfort with the role may
be tied into ethnic traditions of Black women as strong,
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
self-reliant matriarchs and a greater expectation that they
will be the primary financial provider for their household
(Buzzanell et al. 2007; Reynolds 2001). Similarly, most
participants came from blue collar, middle class back-
grounds and were now working in white collar professions.
Thus, future research should sample a variety of ethnic,
racial, and socio-economic populations to consider the
impact of these variables on the breadwinning experience.
Also, none of the participants described themselves as
providing 100% of the financial income for their family for
more than a few months. Further studies (such as that done
by Medved and Rawlins 2007) should be conducted with
women who are not only the primary, but are also the only
breadwinner in their household, including single mothers.
In addition, this study focused on women in opposite-sex
married or engaged relationships. Research should be done
that focuses on FBWs among same-sex couples as well as
cohabitating (non-married) opposite-sex couples. In partic-
ular it would be interesting to see if FBWs in same-sex
couples also express valuing their partner’s contributions as
an essential part of their breadwinning experience, or if that
element is tied to the male partners.
Alternative forms of data collection can also enrich
understanding of FBWs. For example, rhetorical and
content analyses of the media portrayals and coverage of
breadwinning wives can provide further understanding of
how these identities are constructed and (re)produced.
Another potential fruitful avenue of study would involve
surveys with individuals at various levels in organizations
to understand how FBW careers are viewed by those
outside the experience of the model. This knowledge could
contribute to understanding and transforming existing
organizational family leave and employee health policies.
Finally, females as breadwinners challenge current child
care policies in the United States. Scandinavian countries such
as Denmark have policies that offer a wide range of child care
services that address many of the difficult transitions working
women and FBWs in particular may face (Ellingsæter 1999).
Therefore, research on the experiences of FBWs should
consider and talk with women in different countries.
Overall, the current research project offers a base of
understanding that can springboard into a wide range of
studies for scholars interested in issues related to bread-
winning, work-family communication, and identity negoti-
ation. The female breadwinner is an increasingly important
and common role in contemporary society, one that impacts
familial relations, individual identities, and organizational
policies and as such is worthy of further study.
Acknowledgement This research was conducted with the support of
a University of Missouri Arts and Sciences Alumni Organization
Faculty Incentive grant. The author would like to thank Susan Clark
for her assistance with data collection.
17
References
Alvesson, M., Ashcraft, K. L., & Thomas, R. (2008). Identity matters:
Reflections on the construction of identity scholarship in
organization studies. Organization, 15, 5–28.
Ashcraft, K. L. & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A
feminist communicology of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ashforth, B. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Atkinson, M. P. & Boles, J. (1984). WASP (Wives as Senior Partners).
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 681–670.
Atkinson, M. P., Greenstein, T. N., & Lang, M. M. (2005). For women,
breadwinning can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and
wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1137–1148.
Baxter, L. A. & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and
dialectics. New York: Guilford.
Bennetts, L. (2007). The feminine mistake: Are we giving up too
much? New York: Voice.
Bergen, K. M., Kirby, E. L., & McBride, M. C. (2007). “How do you get
two houses cleaned?”: Accomplishing family caregiving in com-
muter marriages. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 287–307.
Biernat, M. & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the
evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgment
and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 707–724.
Biernat, M., Crandall, C. S., Young, L. V., Kobrynowicz, D., &
Halpin, S. M. (1998). All that you can be: Stereotyping of self
and others in a military context. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 301–317.
Bittman, M., England, P., Folbre, N., Sayer, L., & Matheson, G.
(2003). When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in
household work. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 186–214.
Bolak, H. C. (1997). When wives are major providers: culture, gender,
and family work. Gender & Society, 11, 409–433.
Brescoll, V. L. & Uhlmann, E. L. (2005). Attitudes toward traditional and
nontraditional parents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 436–
445.
Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of
labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652–688.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education.
Teachers’ college record, 78, 157–178.
Buzzanell, P. M. & Turner, L. H. (2003). Emotion work revealed by job
loss discourse: Backgrounding-foregrounding of feelings, construc-
tion of normalcy, and (re)instituting of traditional masculinities.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 27–57.
Buzzanell, P. M., & Duckworth, J. (2007, May). Men’s identity
discourses about work-family management and fatherhood.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the International
Communication Association, San Francisco: CA.
Buzzanell, P. M., Meisenbach, R., Remke, R., Bowers, V., Liu, M., &
Conn, C. (2005). The good working mother: Managerial
women’s sensemaking and feelings about work-family issues.
Communication Studies, 56, 261–285.
Buzzanell, P., Waymer, D., Tagle, M., & Liu, M. (2007). Different
transitions into working motherhood: Discourses of Asian,
Hispanic, and African American women. Journal of Family
Communication, 3, 195–220.
Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The communication of social
identities in American scenes. Albany: SUNY.
Chapman, T. (2004). Gender and domestic life. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Christensen, K. (2004). Excerpts from interview. Retrieved from Families
and Work Institute website: http://familiesandwork.org/site/events/
wlla/site/honorees/2004bios/WLLAinterview-2004-christensen.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design:
Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
18
Cripe, E. (2007, May). Sainted or tainted? Stay at home fathers as
dirty workers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
International Communication Association, San Francisco: CA.
Crompton, R. (1999). The decline of the male breadwinner:
Explanations and interpretations. In R. Crompton (Ed.), Restruc-
turing gender relations and employment: The decline of the male
breadwinner (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deutsch, F. M. & Saxon, S. E. (1998). Traditional ideologies,
nontraditional lives. Sex Roles, 38, 331–362.
Diekman, A. B. & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic
constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.
Diekman, A. B. & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes:
A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 30, 369–383.
Doucet, A. & Merla, L. (2007). Stay-at home-fathering: A strategy for
balancing work and home in Canadian and Belgian families.
Community, Work and Family, 10, 453–471.
Dougherty, D. S. (2001). Sexual harassment as [dys]functional
process: A feminist standpoint analysis. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 29, 372–402.
Dougherty, D. S. & Drumheller, K. (2006). Sensemaking and
emotions in organizations: Accounting for emotions in a
rational(ized) context. Communication Studies, 57, 215–238.
Douglas, S. J. & Michaels, M. W. (2004). The mommy myth: The
idealization of motherhood and how it has undermined women.
New York: Free.
Drago, R. W. (2007). Striking a balance: Work, family, life. Boston:
Dollars & Sense.
Drago, R., Black, D., & Wooden, M. (2005). Female breadwinner
families: Their existence, persistence and sources. Journal of
Sociology, 41, 343–62.
Duckworth, J. D. & Buzzanell, P. M. (2009). Constructing work-life
balance and fatherhood: Men’s framing of the meanings of both
work and family. Communication Studies, 60, 1–15.
Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice
toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Edley, N. & Wetherell, M. (1997). Jockeying for position: The construction
of masculine identities. Discourse and Society, 8, 203–217.
Ehrenreich, B. (1983). The hearts of men. Garden City: Anchor.
Ellemers, N. (2001). Individual upward mobility and the perceived
legitimacy of intergroup relations. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.),
The psychology of legitimacy - Emerging perspectives on ideology,
justice and intergroup relations (pp. 205–222). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Ellingsæter, A. L. (1999). Women’s right to work: The interplay of
state, market and women’s agency. NORA: Nordic Journal of
Women’s Studies, 7, 109–123.
Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: feminism, family, and
research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866–884.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory
of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Golden, A. G. (2001). Modernity and the communicative management
of multiple roles: The case of the worker–parent. Journal of
Family Communication, 1, 233–264.
Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender
stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder.
Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
Janssens, A. (1998). The rise and decline of the male breadwinner
family? An overview of the debate. In A. Jannsens (Ed.), The rise
and decline of the male breadwinner family? (pp. 1–23).
Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge.
Johnston, D. D. & Swanson, D. H. (2007). Cognitive acrobatics in the
construction of worker-mother identity. Sex Roles, 57, 447–459.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
Johnston, D. D., Swanson, D. H., & Luidens, D. (2008). Mother’s
work history in the construction of adult daughter’s work-mother
discursive strategies. Sociological Focus, 42, 159–176.
Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Marsiglio, W. & Pleck, J. H. (2005). Fatherhood and masculinities. In
M. S. Kimmel, J. Hearn & R. W. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of
studies on men & masculinities (pp. 249–269). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
May, P. (2009, February 18). Job losses for men spurring seismic shift
in roles at home. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved from http://
www.Mercurynews.com
McBride, B. A. & Darragh, J. (1995). Interpreting the data on father
involvement: Implications for parenting programs for men.
Families in Society, 76, 490–497.
Medved, C. E. (2009). Crossing and transforming occupational and
household divisions of labor: Reviewing literatures and decon-
structing divisions. In C. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook
(pp. 457–484). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Medved, C. E., Brogan, S., McClanahan, A. M., Morris, J. F., &
Shepherd, G. J. (2006). Work and family socializing communi-
cation: Messages, gender, and power. Journal of Family
Communication, 6, 161–180.
Medved, C., & Rawlins, W. (2007, November). Stay at-home fathers
and breadwinning mothers: Stances, tensions, and ironies. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the National Communica-
tion Association, Chicago, IL.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A
source book of new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Minetor, R. (2002). Breadwinner wives and the men they marry. Far
Hills: New Horizons.
Mumby, D. K. (1998). Organizing men: Power, discourse, and the
social construction of masculinity(s) in the workplace. Commu-
nication Theory, 8, 164–183.
National Savings and Investments. (2007, August 3). NS&I’s “century
of saving” report signals a gender shift in financial household
power [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.nsandi.com/
press-room/press-releases/pr2004296.jsp
Nock, S. L. (1998). Marriage in men’s lives. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Pappenheim, H. & Graves, G. (2005). Bringing home the bacon:
Making marriage work when she makes more money. New York:
Roundtable Press, Inc.
Petroski, D. J., & Edley, P. P. (2006). Stay-at-home fathers:
Masculinity, family, work, and gender stereotypes. Electronic
Journal of Communication, 16(3-4).
Potuchek, J. L. (1992). Employed wives’ orientations to breadwin-
ning: A gender theory analysis. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 54, 48–58.
Prentice, D. A. & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should
be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The
contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.
Reynolds, T. (2001). Black mothering, paid work and identity. Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 24, 1046–1064.
Sainsbury, D. (1996). Gender, equality, and welfare states. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seccombe, W. (1986). Patriarchy stabilized: The construction of the
male breadwinner norm in nineteenth-century Britain. Social
History, 11, 53–70.
Smithson, J., Lewis, S., Cooper, C., & Dyer, J. (2004). Flexible
working and the gender pay gap in the accountancy profession.
Work, Employment and Society, 18, 115–35.
Stamp, P. (1985). Balance of financial power in marriage: An
exploratory study of breadwinning wives. Sociological Review,
33, 546–557.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:2–19
Stockman, N., Bonney, N., & Xuewen, S. (1995). Women’s work in
East and West: The dual burden of employment and family life.
London: UCL.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of inter-group
behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of
intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thompson, L. & Walker, A. J. (1995). The place of feminism in family
studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 847–865.
Tichenor, V. (2005). Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating
identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles, 53, 191–205.
Toller, P. (2008). Bereaved parents’ negotiation of identity following
the death of a child. Communication Studies, 59, 306–321.
Twenge, J. M. (2009). Status and gender: The paradox of progress in an
age of narcissism. Sex Roles, 61, 338–340.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004). Women in the labor force: A
databook (Report 973). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/
wlf-databook.pdf
19
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Women in the labor force: A
databook (Report 1011). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/
wlf-databook-2008.pdf
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. New York:
State University of New York.
Warren, T. (2007). Conceptualizing breadwinning work. Work,
Employment and Society, 21, 317–336.
Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict
and what to do about it. Oxford: University Press.
Willmott, M. & Nelson, W. (2003). Complicated lives: The malaise of
modernity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Winter, J. & Pauwels, A. (2006). Men staying at home looking after
their children: Masculinities and gender inclusive language
reform. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 16–36.
Yodanis, C. & Lauer, S. (2007). Managing money in marriage:
Multilevel and cross-national effects of the breadwinner role.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1307–1325.