Advertisement

Relationship Formation, Division of Housework and Power Negotiation

  • Oluwafemi AdeagboEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Sociology book series (BRIEFSSOCY)

Abstract

Having engaged with the historical contextualisation of same-sex relationships and relevant literature in Chapters One and Two, key findings of research conducted are discussed in Chapters Three and Four respectively. In order to understand the complexities and dynamics of interracial gay households in the South African context, this chapter engages with the relationship formation, division of labour and power relations, amongst gay couples. The main channels through which gay partners initiated their relationships were physical face-to-face encounters or social engagements and online dating. The impact of personal resources, such as income, education and race, were examined in the initial coming together of the couples but none of this had any significant influence on their familial arrangements. This chapter also examines how gay couples share housework and participate in the management of domestic duties. In this latter regard, no distinctive hierarchical divisions of labour amongst the participants were evident, notwithstanding their racial backgrounds and differential earnings. Lastly, this chapter suggests that scholars, gender and family experts, should pay attention to how gay partners are resisting and ‘redoing gender’ in their relationships, and theorise gay partners’ experiences distinctively rather than looking at them through a heterosexual lens. Overall, this chapter discusses the formation of relationships, division of household labour, how power is negotiated and what sustains intimacy in interracial gay partnerships.

Keywords

Gender roles Power Housework Relationship formation Masculinity 

References

  1. Adeagbo, O. (2015). ‘Do according to your time, preferences and abilities’: Exploring the division of household labour among interracial gay partners in post-apartheid South Africa. South African Review of Sociology, 46, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adeagbo, O. (2016). ‘Love beyond colour’: The formation of interracial gay men’s intimate relationships in post-apartheid South Africa. National Identities, 18, 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amato, P. R., Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., & Rogers, S. A. (2007). Alone together: How marriage in America is changing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43, 79–98.Google Scholar
  5. Barraket, J., & Henry-Waring, M. S. (2008). Getting it on (line): Sociological perspectives on e-dating. Journal of Sociology, 44, 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow and Company.Google Scholar
  7. Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, G., Maycock, B., & Burns, S. (2005). Your picture is your bait: Use and meaning of cyberspace among gay men. Journal of sex research, 42, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey, R. (1996). Betwixt and between: An organization’s relationship with online communications. SIECUS Report, 25, 8–9.Google Scholar
  10. Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chesters, J. (2012). Gender attitudes and housework: Trends over time in Australia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43, 511–526.Google Scholar
  12. Connell, R. W. (2000). Understanding men: Gender sociology and the New International Research on Masculinities. Clark Lecture, University of Kansas Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
  13. December, J. (1996). Units of analysis for Internet communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), 1, 143.Google Scholar
  14. Dunne, G. A. (1997). Lesbian lifestyles: Women’s work and the politics of sexuality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dunne, G. A. (1998). Introduction: Add sexuality and stir: Towards a broader understanding of the gender dynamics of work and family life. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 2, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course. USA: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Fitch, C. A., & Ruggles, S. (2000). Historical trends in marriage formation: The United States 1850–1990. In L. J. Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 59–88). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. American Sociological Review, 69, 751–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gephart, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1997). Power strategies in romantic relationships. In American Psychological Association Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  20. Goldberg, A. E. (2013). “Doing” and “Undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 812–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonzaga, G. (2011). How you meet your spouse matters. Retrieved May 12, 2014.Google Scholar
  23. Grote, N. K., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Perceiving unfairness in the family: Cause or consequence of marital distress? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grote, N. K., Naylor, K. E., & Clark, M. S. (2002). Perceiving the division of family work to be unfair: Do social comparisons, enjoyment, and competence matter? Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 510–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 276–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harry, J. (1984). Gay couples. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Harry, J., & DeVall, W. B. (1978). The social organization of gay males. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Harvey, S. M., Beckman, L. J., Browner, C. H., & Sherman, C. A. (2002). Relationship power, decision making, and sexual relations: An exploratory study with couples of Mexican origin. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100, 130–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hook, J. L. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American Sociological Review, 71, 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huston, T. L. (2002). Power. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berschied, A. Christensen, et al. (Eds.), Close relationships. New York: Percheron Press.Google Scholar
  32. Huston, M., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The relationships of lesbians and of gay men. In S. Duck & J. Wood (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). “His” and “her” relationships? A review of the empirical evidence. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jepsen, L. K., & Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39, 435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jepsen, C. A., & Jepsen, L. K. (2006). The sexual division of labor within households: Comparisons of couples to roommates. Eastern Economic Journal, 32, 299–312.Google Scholar
  36. Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 251–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kurdek, L. A. (2006). Differences between partners from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kurdek, L. A. (2007). The allocation of household labor by partners in gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 132–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levine, S. (1992). Clinical life: A clinicians guide. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lubbe, C. (2007). Mothers, fathers or parents: Same-gendered families in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 37, 260–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Madden, M., & Lenhart, A. (2006). Online dating: Americans who are seeking romance use the Internet to help them in their search, but there is still widespread public concern about the safety of online dating. Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
  43. McWhirter, D. P., & Mattison, A. M. (1984). The male couple: How relationships develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  44. McWilliams, S., & Barrett, A. E. (2014). Online dating in middle and later life: Gendered expectations and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Merkle, E. R., & Richardson, R. A. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating: Conceptualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Milani, T. M. (2013). Are ‘queers’ really ‘queer’? Language, identity and same-sex desire in a South African online community. Discourse & Society, 24, 615–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller, S., & Perlman, D. (2009). Intimate relationship. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  48. Naidoo, K., Smit, R., & Seedat-Khan, M. (2012). Gender politics and work-family integration: Persisting exclusions at two South African universities. In T. Uys & S. Patel (Eds.), Exclusion, social capital and citizenship: Contested transitions in South Africa and India. New Delhi: Orient Black Swan.Google Scholar
  49. Oerton, S. (1997). “Queer housewives?”: Some problems in theorising the division of domestic labour in lesbian and gay households. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20, 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Osmond, M. W., & Thorne, B. (1993). Feminist theories: The social construction of gender in families and society. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  51. Öun, I. (2013). Is it fair to share? Perceptions of fairness in the division of housework among couples in 22 countries. Social Justice Research, 26, 400–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1980). Sex differences in values concerning love relationships. In Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  53. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peplau, L. A., & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Perlesz, A., Power, J., Brown, R., McNair, R., Schofield, M., Pitts, M., et al. (2010). Organising work and home in same-sex parented families: Findings from the work love play study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 374–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pitt, R. N., & Borland, E. (2009). Bachelorhood and men’s attitudes about gender roles. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16, 140–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  58. Rabin, C., & Shapira-Berman, O. (1997). Egalitarianism and marital happiness: Israeli wives and husbands on a collision course? American Journal of Family Therapy, 25, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Recio, E. M. (2000). A unified theory on homosexual identity. Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.Google Scholar
  60. Reilly, M. E., & Lynch, J. M. (1990). Power-sharing in lesbian partnerships. Journal of Homosexuality, 19, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual communication: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  62. Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2011). Patterns of racial-ethnic exclusion by internet daters. Social Forces, 89, 807–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2010). How couples meet and stay together, Wave 2 version 2.04. In Machine Readable Data File. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. http://data.stanford.edu/hcmst.
  64. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.Google Scholar
  65. Sautter, J. M., Tippett, R. M., & Philip Morgan, S. (2010). The social demography of Internet dating in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 554–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage: How love between equals really works. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  67. Shechory, M., & Ziv, R. (2007). Relationships between gender role attitudes, role division, and perception of equity among heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples. Sex Roles, 56, 629–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1997). The balance of power in romantic heterosexual couples over time from “his” and “her” perspectives. Sex Roles, 37, 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stacey, J. (2004). Cruising to familyland: Gay hypergamy and rainbow kinship. Current Sociology, 52, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stacey, J. (2005). The families of man: Gay male intimacy and kinship in a global metropolis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1911–1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stacey, J. (2006). Gay parenthood and the decline of paternity as we knew it. Sexualities, 9, 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stephure, R. J., Boon, S. D., MacKinnon, S. L., & Deveau, V. L. (2009). Internet initiated relationships: Associations between age and involvement in online dating. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 658–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tasker, F. (2002). Lesbian and gay parenting. In A. Coyle & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: New perspectives. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  74. Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1009–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Veniegas, R. C., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and the quality of same-sex friendships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Walker, A. J. (1996). Couples watching television: Gender, power, and the remote control. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 813–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25, 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender & Society, 23, 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Williams, M. (1996). Intimacy and the Internet. Contemporary Sexuality, 30, 1–11.Google Scholar
  81. Wong, D. (2012). Doing gender, doing culture: Division of domestic labour among lesbians in Hong Kong. Women’s Studies International Forum, 35, 266–275. Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations