For married mothers, breadsharing is much more common than breadwinning

The other day when the Pew report on mothers who are breadwinners came out, I complained about calling wives “breadwinners” if they earn $1 more than their husbands:

A wife who earns $1 more than her husband for one year is not the “breadwinner” of the family. That’s not what made “traditional” men the breadwinners of their families — that image is of a long-term pattern in which the husband/father earns all or almost all of the money, which implies a more entrenched economic domination.

To elaborate a little, there are two issues here. One is empirical: today’s female breadwinners are much less economically dominant than the classical male breadwinner – and even than the contemporary male breadwinner, as I will show. And second, conceptually breadwinner not a majority-share concept determined by a fixed percentage of income, but an ideologically specific construction of family provision.

Let’s go back to the Pew data setup: heterogamously married couples with children under age 18 in the year 2011 (from Census data provided by IPUMS). In 23% of those couples the wife’s personal income is greater than her husband’s — that’s the big news, since it’s an increase from 4% half a century ago. This, to the Pew authors and media everywhere, makes her the “primary breadwinner,” or, in shortened form (as in their title), “breadwinner moms.” (That’s completely reasonable with single mothers, by the way; I’m just working on the married-couple side of the issue — just a short chasm away.)

The 50%+1 standard conceals that these male “breadwinners” are winning a greater share of the bread than are their female counterparts. Specifically, the average father-earning-more-than-his-wife earns 81% of the couple’s income; the average mother-earning-more-than-her-husband earns 69% of the couple’s income. Here is the distribution in more detail:

breadwinner-distributions

This shows that by far the most common situation for a female “breadwinner” is to be earning between 50% and 60% of the couple’s income — the case for 38% of such women. For the father “breadwinners,” though, the most common situation — for 28% of them — is to be earning all of the income, a situation that is three-times more common than the reverse.

Collapsing data into categories is essential for understanding the world. But putting these two groups into the same category and speaking as if they are equal is misleading.

This is especially problematic, I think, because of the historical connotation of the term breadwinner. The term dates back to 1821, says the Oxford English Dictionary. That’s from the heyday of America’s separate spheres ideology, which elevated to reverential status the woman-home/man-work ideal. Breadwinners in that Industrial Revolution era were not defined by earning 1% more than their wives. They earned all of the money, ideally (meaning, if their earnings were sufficient), but just as importantly they were the only one permanently working for pay outside the home. (JSTOR has references going back to the 1860s which confirm this usage.)

Modifying “breadwinner” with “primary” is better than not, but that subtlety has been completely lost in the media coverage. Consider these headlines from a Google news search just now:

Further down there are some references to “primary breadwinners,” but that’s rare.

Maybe we should call those 100%ers breadwinners, and call the ones closer to 50% breadsharers.

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “For married mothers, breadsharing is much more common than breadwinning

  1. Maybe we should call those 100%ers breadwinners, and call the ones closer to 50% breadsharers.

    And the 75 percenters?

    Like

  2. What happened to using html tags to indicate italics?

    Like

  3. Well, what if some attitudes are mildly heritable in the broad sense; e.g. the wide liberal/conservative attitude. If liberal mothers and fathers have less offspring, that would, in time, produce more conservative society and the “stalled” “progress” in gender equality.

    Like

    • You’ve watched “Idiocracy”, haven’t you? :)
      Or noticed the changing demographics of Europe? :(

      Like

      • No, I haven’t watched idiocracy, though I have heard about it. But the ideas are not from Idiocracy, but from analysis of the statistics of completed fertility. But my question was different from dysgenic trends in fertility. Being conservative is not equivalent to being idiot, so more conservative society does not equal more stupid society (in two studies I’ve read on relation IQ to conservatism/liberal, actually IQ was related to conservatism as that extreme conservatists < extreme liberals < moderates liberals and moderates < moderate conservatists, with the important mmm notice that the liberal/conservative attitude were measured by party affiliation – not a perfect measure).

        However, current trends are that more conservative people are breeding more children, and it seems that the variance in attitudes such as religiousness, sexual restriction, traditionalism etc is in large part accounted for by heritability. As such, lacking immigration, in the course of several dozen of generations, with trends continued, there should appear more conservative society. What I am asking, whether it is possible that such trends could produce effects you see in USA (stalling of the "progress"). I find it unlikely, but nevertheless this is an interesting question (from purely intellectual point of view, for me at least).

        Actually it would not require changing characcteristics in whole population, it would be enough that changes in the past were brought about by some smaller group of people, and this group would shrink (though not breeded out of the existence) by 1990s.

        Like

  4. Pingback: Beyond Dollars and Cents—A Cultural Adendum to the “Breadwinner Moms” Debate | Inequality by (Interior) Design

  5. Pingback: Beyond Dollars and Cents—A Cultural Supplement to the “Breadwinner Moms” Debate | Inequality by (Interior) Design

  6. Leah

    Breadsharing seems pretty normal as an attitude/goal for the Millennials old enough to marry (born between about 1980-90), even though sometimes the sexism inherent in the social structure makes it difficult for heterogamously married fathers to “lean in” with childcare than for their female counterparts. Not to mention that the “ideal” 1950s model was not the reality for everyone in the 50s, either.

    Even “primary wage-earner” seems strange if the difference is only 40/60.

    I really appreciate your pointing out all the strangeness with language surrounding marriage, “family life,” and work–thank you!

    Like

  7. Pingback: For married mothers, breadsharing is much more common than breadwinning | Sustainable Economic Opportunities For Women

  8. Pingback: The Downside for Dads « MomsRising Blog

  9. Pingback: Four Ways Great Dads Are Discriminated Against and What We Can Do About It — The Good Men Project

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s