In the present day society both women and men have multiple roles of parents, employees, partners, neighbors, and friends. The ability to combine several roles is very important. The purpose of the present paper is to critique the peer-reviewed article entitled Women, Men, Work, and Family: An Expansionist Theory. Rosalind Chait Barnett of Brandeis University and Janet Shibley Hyde of University of Wisconsin collaborated to write this research. It was published in American Psychologist in October 2001. I will thoroughly summarize Barnett and Hyde’s work, paying particular attention to the empirical evidence and conclusion parts. A discussion of the weak points of the researchers’ arguments will be explored. I will highlight the strong points of the article as well. A suggestion for further research on the beneficial process of adding income will be offered. Finally, my own opinions on the multiple roles influence on the health will be offered to the reader.
The authors start with summarizing the classical theories concerning gender roles in the family, demonstrating their partial obsoleteness. Analyzing the main points of the functionalists’, psychoanalytic, sociobiologists’ and evolutionary theories, which focused on the physiological basis of the difference in gender roles, they argue the fact that the roles are inherent. The researchers note that the roles are not immutable and the situation and context may influence them greatly. Comparing stress experienced by men and women with multiple roles of employees and parents and/or partners to the families with traditional roles division, the authors state that it appeared to be lower in the first case. The researches made an attempt to fill the theoretical gap, developing a new theory, which, in their opinion, better suits the contemporary realities. Barnett, R.C., Hyde, J.S. (2001) state that “multiple roles are, in general, beneficial for both women and men, as reflected in mental health, physical health, and relationship health” (p. 784). Researching the positive effects of the multiple roles, the authors consider buffering, added income, social support, opportunities to experience success, expanded frame or reference, increased self-complexity, similarity of experiences to be the beneficial consequences.
As quoted in Barnett and Hyde’s article, Voydanoff and Donnelly (1999) found that job satisfaction and marital happiness acted as buffers or moderators, this fact supports the idea of buffering resulting from the multiple roles. The income added by a wife to the family budget is supposed to reduce distress of a sole-bread-winner husband and to improve the relationship health. Integration into a social network provides additional support and opportunities for self–realization, enabling them to experience success. Similarity of experiences are supposed to enable partners to empathize each other, while solving similar problems enables partners to empathize with each other. Considering the quantity and quality of multiple roles and stereotypes concerning the personal traits inherent to men or women, Barnett, R.C., Hyde, J.S. (2001) concluded that “problematic experiences at work, in one’s marriage, or with one’s children were associated with high distress, and the magnitude of these relationship did not differ by gender” (792). The authors argue that work and family may be in conflict and the stressful consequences of the multiple roles.
The article under analysis provides a thorough and many sided research of the possible stress resulting from the multiple roles, but some of the arguments are too idealistic, in my opinion. For example, as quoted in Barnett and Hyde’s article Schwartz (1994) stated that “couples were distinguished by their ability to build their relationships on fairness and collaboration and to avoid traditional gender roles” (p.787). This approach ignores the complexity of the issue and the unique climate of every separate family and is based on the occasional examples. At the same time as quoted in Poelman’s work (2005) Westman et al. (2004) state that “although they too share the role of breadwinning and may be described as dual-career or dual-earner couples, they still hold traditional gender attitudes” (p. 202). These two researches provide the opposite views of the same problem, which are not categorical, in fact, conceding that another context may lead to other consequences. Dropping of some inessential details was necessary for developing the theory but the authors were inclined to idealize the personal qualities of men and women and the real state of affairs. As a result, the process of struggle with the prejudices and stereotypes concerning the gender roles is oversimplified. Barnett, R.C., Hyde, J.S. (2001) state that “Adding the worker role is beneficial to women, and adding or participating in family roles is beneficial for men” (p. 784). The fact that both of the partners are supposed to be ready to change their frames and have multiple roles for the successful realization of each other in different spheres is not taken into consideration, as well as the existence of some transitional forms of the roles division.
On the other hand, the article under analysis has a lot of advantages. It is logically built, the authors provide a clear introduction, which organizes the work and makes it easier for the reader to understand it and come to a conclusion. Having given a general idea of the research to the reader, the psychologists dwelt upon each point of the discussion, providing plenty of empirical evidence for every statement. This makes the article and the expansionist theory sound very persuasive as a great number of scientists of different ages and origins are referred to. Another strong point of the article is the authors’ ability to predict some of the possible reader’s counterarguments. Barnett, R.C., Hyde, J.S. (2001) state that “Just as multiple roles provide opportunities for success, they also offer opportunities for failure or frustration, especially in the context of low-wage work, workplace discrimination, and sexual harassment” (p. 784). Though the possible counterarguments are not paid much attention, they were taken into consideration at least in several references. Barnett, R.C., Hyde, J.S. (2001) note that “women taking on the work role may experience sex discrimination or sexual harassment. Women of color may be exposed to these and race discrimination as well” (p. 788).Ignoring the inner family problems that may occur in the partners’ relationship, the authors concede that the environment may be not healthy and prevent the partners with multiple roles from experiencing success. This involvement produces the impression of a live conversation with the authors, even not presence at their lecture, as the reader is permitted to have an opinion of his own and to be a critical reader.
Using this opportunity to express my own opinion concerning the subject matter, I would like to admit that the distress may be reduced only on condition that every person is eager to become an active participant of the process and is able to cope with multiple roles. I agree that multiple roles are supposed to result in buffering and increased self-complexity. An individual has to develop every side of his personality, making a choice between career and family life is senseless. This would be a choice between the spiritual and material sides of life, discussed from the times immemorial. A person should not live to eat but should eat to live and showing preference to one of the roles it is very important to find the balance and not to ignore other spheres for self-realization. It is very difficult to measure human feelings and success in life and provide some certain figures and regulations. The personal attitude and the way one feels should be the concern in this type of questions. I think that the beneficial process of adding income to the family budget should be researched more thoroughly. It implies a lot of factors which may not only reduce the distress but deepen it as well. Barnett, R.C., Hyde, J.S. (2001) mentioned the possibility of sex discrimination or even harassment at work (p. 788), but these are only few of the possible problems. Kail, R.V., Cavanaugh, J.C. (2008) noted that women suffer from burnout caused by multiple roles more often than men (p. 252). It means that the fair division of the domestic chores is questionable and combination of the bread-winning and house keeping functions may overburden women. Thus, a woman reduces the stress of a husband earning money, but he has to reduce her stress by means of support in house keeping as well.
To conclude, I would note that the expansionist theory discussed in the article entitled Women, Men, Work, and Family: An Expansionist Theory is up-to-date and provides current data. Multiple roles are beneficial for men and women, important for their mental, physical, and relationship health if the traditional prejudices concerning gender roles are left in the past.
Reference
Barnett, R.C., Hyde, J.S. (2001). Women, Men, Work, and Family: An Expansionist Theory. American Psychologist, 796, 781 – 794.
Kail, R.V., Cavanaugh, J.C. (2008). Human Development: A Life-Span View. Belmost, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Poelmans S.A. (Ed). (2005). Work and Family: An International Research Perspective. New Jersey, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.