Contemporary Two-Parent Families PDF

Chapter 4 Contemporary Two‑Parent Families Navigating Work and Family Challenges Peter Fraenkel Carrie Capstick T wo-­ parent families in the 21st century face myriad challenges. As they...

Chapter 4 Contemporary Two‑Parent Families Navigating Work and Family Challenges Peter Fraenkel Carrie Capstick T wo-­ parent families in the 21st century face myriad challenges. As they negotiate developmental issues and transitions in raising children in a more hazardous world, they must address common sources of interspousal, parent–child, sibling, and multigenerational conflicts that arise in family life. Many families cope with additional strains of illness, disability, death and loss; many struggle with unemployment and economic hardship. Those who are oppressed or marginalized on the basis of race, class, ethnicity, immigra- tion status, gender identity, or sexual orientation must overcome societal bar- riers to thrive. All contemporary families must contend with the impact of the phenomenal growth in communication and information technologies. In this chapter, we focus on the key issues for most contemporary two-­parent fami- lies; namely, the stressful challenges facing families with both parents in the workforce, so-­called “dual-­earner” families. Prevalence and Economic Status of Dual‑Earner Families Since the 1970s, dual-­earner families have become the norm, and most two- ­parent families in the coming decades will continue this pattern. The steady rise in the rates of dual-­earner families largely reflects the increasing repre- sentation of women in the workforce and the necessity of two incomes for 78  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 79 most families to maintain a moderate standard of living and to send children to college. Concomitant with women’s rising level of education and changing workplace policies, the gap between women’s and men’s salaries has been nar- rowing. Yet women still, on average, only make 80–85% of male earnings for comparable work and time (Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond, 2009; U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office, 2010). Of course, social and economic trends are rarely linear, and the rates of dual-­earner families fluctuate with changing economic and social circum- stances. For instance, a 2010 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report found that 58.9% of married couple families with children under 18 are currently dual earners, a decline from 64.2% nearly a decade earlier, reflecting higher rates of unemployment across most demographics due to the current severe economic downturn. However, despite fluctuations, the majority of couples in the future will continue to be dual earners. The percentages of dual-­earner families are similar across racial/ethnic groups, with lower rates for Latino families, in which the traditional roles of men working and women homemaking continue to prevail for more cou- ples than in other groups. However, similar rates of dual earners across most racial/ethnic groups do not translate into equal employment opportunities. In the current economic crisis, rates of unemployment have been significantly higher in black families (17.4%) and Latino families (16.9%), than in white families (11.1%) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Challenges at the Boundary of Work and Family Many benefits accrue in a dual-­earner family. Foremost are the economic ben- efits and greater security of income flow. If one partner loses a job and must seek new work, the other’s income can sustain the family temporarily, albeit likely with many compromises and constraints (Halpern & Murphy, 2005). Psychologically and relationally, multiple and shared roles for both partners (as parent, partner, and worker), rather than traditional role divisions (men as breadwinners, and women as mothers and homemakers), buffer the impact of negative events in one or the other sphere and increase opportunities for experiencing personal satisfaction and success, as well as increasing positive emotions each partner brings to couple and family relationships. When both partners can avail themselves of social support beyond the dyad, it decreases pressure on the partner to be the sole source of emotional soothing and stress relief. Expanding roles can also enlarge the number of independently accrued experiences and new perspectives on partners’ lives and bring new topics to their conversations. Dual earnership provides the economic basis for challenging partners to confront and take apart constraining, unidimensional gender roles (Barnett 80 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES & Hyde, 2001). For instance, couples benefit from the sense of sharing the opportunity and responsibility for earning, potentially reducing gendered power dynamics based on men being the sole source of income. For the increasing number of couples embracing a model of peer marriage in which both partners work and contribute to child care and domestic chores, being a dual-­earner couple aligns with core relational values of equality and fairness (Galinsky et al., 2009; Gerson, 2010). Children are also happier when both parents work. Ellen Galinsky’s (1999, 2005) landmark survey of children’s perspectives on their parents’ work found that children overwhelmingly endorse having both fathers and mothers working. Their main concern is that when the parents are home, they be less stressed and tired and more emotionally available to them. Despite these many benefits, many, if not most, dual-­earner couples struggle to attain a more optimal sense of work–­family “balance,” “inte- gration,” “navigation,” or “interaction.” Galinsky (1999), a pioneer in this area of research, argues that the term “balancing” work and family posits a zero-sum game in which an increase in time and energy devoted to one domain is viewed as automatically depleting the other domain. She suggests that the notions of work–life “integration” and of “navigating work and fam- ily life” better capture the need for flexibility in moving between domains, and emphasizes the goal of maximizing positive—and minimizing negative—­ mutual influence (positive vs. negative spillover). Halpern and Murphy (2005) argue that the relationship between work and family is better understood by applying the statistical notion of “interaction,” examining the effects of two variables in combination for a more accurate (and, in this case, more positive) picture. Although these points are well taken, we still use the term “balance,” because it is endemic to the cultural vernacular and comes up constantly in clinical work with couples and families. However, we view balance not as an ultimately unattainable state of perfect, static equilibrium but as character- ized by a dynamic, flexible, and productive tension among one’s multiple life involvements—work, couple, family, and community, among others (Fraen- kel, 2011). To clarify, we also use the term “work” to mean paid employment, albeit with recognition that those on unpaid home-front duty are also work- ing, and that responsibilities in both spheres are essential family work. Several recent studies show that most dual-­earner couples report sig- nificant work–­family conflict (Galinsky et al., 2009; Schneider & Waite, 2005). Research has not found racial or ethnic differences in degree of work–­ nonwork interference, suggesting that this is an issue facing most dual-­earner couples (Schieman, Milkie, & Glavin, 2009), although strains are greater for low-­income families with fewer resources. Increasingly, attainment of work– life balance and managing conflict between work and family roles has truly become a couple’s issue, more equally shared by women and men, rather than a problem shouldered almost entirely by working women (Galinsky et al.,  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 81 2009). A study by Williams and Boushey (2010) revealed that 90% of mothers and 95% of fathers report work–­family conflict. Social discourse and work- place policy must reframe this from a “woman’s problem” to a family issue for both parents and for their children. To a great extent, the increase in working fathers’ involvement in child care is due to the time shifts incurred by dual earnership: As more women are working full time and women’s salaries become more essential to the finan- cial well-being of the family (Galinsky et al., 2009), men must contribute more to child care and housework (Wang & Bianchi, 2009). Studies find that employed women do significantly less housework than women who are at home full-time (Kroska, 2004); however, they still do disproportionately more than their husbands. Yet there is evidence that many contemporary fathers across the generations have shifted their beliefs about gender roles in fami- lies—both in terms of no longer believing that working compromises women’s maternal relationships to children or the children’s well-being, and in terms of themselves desiring and actually spending more time as parents than did their fathers (Galinsky et al., 2009; Parke, 2002). And in contrast to the stereotype that men’s self-­concept is wholly centered on their career success, increasingly men judge themselves and their happiness as much or more by how they func- tion in personal domains, a trend that has been building for over a decade (Levine & Pittinsky, 1997). Thus, for reasons to be described in this chapter, although women continue to shoulder more of the concrete and emotional burdens of balancing work and family life, especially domestic chores, there is a shift more toward a shared desire among heterosexual couples to achieve gender equity in work and family roles (Gerson, 2010). Clearly, aspects of the culture of work and the culture of heterosexual masculinity that keep men from more fully acting on desires to fulfill more equitable roles—for instance, not taking paid parental leave when it is available (Belkin, 2010)—must be addressed if greater work–­family balance is to be achieved for both men and women (Williams, 2010). We highlight that the challenge is particularly for heterosexual men, because evidence suggests that gay men, as well as lesbian women, distribute responsibility for child care and housework more equita- bly than typically occurs in heterosexual couples (Bergman, Rubio, Green, & Padrón, 2010; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2005). Despite varied work–life issues that intersect with other aspects of cou- ples’ lives, for most if not all couples and families, numerous common fac- tors, from workplace policies to personality styles, may interfere with optimal work–­family balance. That said, most research to date has examined the expe- rience of white, middle-class, heterosexual couples. Work Hours and Schedules Surveys over the past two decades have consistently found the Unites States among the countries with the longest hours per day and most weeks worked 82 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES per year (Organisation for Economic Co-­Operation and Development, 2010), Overwork generates a time bind, producing individual and family stress (Bel- lavia & Frone, 2005; Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2005; Galinsky et al., 2005). Work hours have increased for certain occupations, particularly mana- gerial, professional, or technological jobs (Galinsky et al., 2005; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004), but the main reason for the overall greater work hours per family is the increased employment of women (Jacobs & Gerson, 2004). And when working mothers are still expected to handle most of the housework, child care, and care of older adults, as well as coordination of family schedules and activities, conflict commonly occurs between partners about these tacit assumptions and the disproportionate burden of a “second shift” (­Hochschild, 1997). It is crucial for couples to rebalance the skew. Long hours create stress for some families, but for others, stress results from being unable to increase work hours or sustain employment needed for the family’s well-being (Jacobs & Gerson, 2004). And, certainly, job loss can have a wide range of negative effects on couples and families (Howe, Levy, & Caplan, 2004). Financial insecurity from too little paid work negatively impacts health and family relationships (Ehrenreich, 2001; Probst, 2005). Even at higher socioeconomic levels, reducing work hours can result in chal- lenging trade-offs and may be more predictive of distress than long hours (Barnett & Gareis, 2000a). In their review of studies on men’s family involve- ment, Bianchi and Milkie (2010) reported that insufficient earnings may erode family connections, impairing a husband/father’s motivation and ability to interact positively with partners, children, and kin. Thus, for some workers, it is the experienced meaning of reduced work hours, as well as income reduc- tions, that influence overall quality of life (Barnett & Gareis, 2000b). Clearly, both ends of the work-hours spectrum can create difficulties for workers and their families. Although the majority of employees wish for less work hours (Galinsky et al., 2005), job insecurity makes most reluctant to utilize existing work–­family balance policies that might provide more time for family. Indeed, numerous scholars have argued that inadequate American work–­ family policies cause much of the sense of time crunch and difficulties for dual-­earner couples (Gornick & Meyers, 2003; Williams & Boushey, 2010). Additionally, workplace cultures often discourage employees from utilizing existing benefits that would provide more time for family life, such as flextime and compressed workweeks, allowing choice in work schedules (Bond, Galin- sky, Kim, & Brownfield, 2005). The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) mandates 12 weeks of unpaid leave for childbirth, adoption, or caring for ill family members (Galinsky, Bond, & Sakai, 2008). However, these policies often do not translate into real options for most workers. For instance, the FMLA is available for less than half of workers, because it does not apply to small businesses (50 or fewer employees) and is not available for fathers (Ray, 2008), part-time, seasonal, or temporary workers, or for families headed by same-sex partners. Because it is unpaid leave, most parents cannot afford to utilize this benefit (Han & Waldfogel, 2003). Additionally, many workers are  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 83 reluctant to do so because of concerns that it will be perceived as lack of job commitment (Eaton, 2003). Another problematic policy issue is that the United States is the only country among the industrialized nations that has no laws protecting work- ers’ entitlement to a vacation (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). Although 79% of employees have access to paid vacation, the average number of days allotted is a little more than 2 weeks (half of the minimum yearly vacation provided to Europeans), few employees take their full vacation days, 19% use vacation time to attend to family matters or as sick time to make up for lack of sick days or personal leave days provided by the workplace, and almost 25% work while on vacation (Galinsky et al., 2005). Thus, many families cannot count on a once-­yearly opportunity to reconnect and immerse together in a few weeks of work-free time. Problematic policies and workplace cultures place the sense of respon- sibility for the negative emotional and family effects of overwork on the worker. Employees (and their families) view their overwork as the result of their own (or their partner’s) inability to set limits or work efficiently—or, as connoted in the term “workaholic,” as the result of an “addiction” to work—­ rather than an understandable attempt to survive in an unstable, demanding employment culture. This misattribution of blame of the source of overwork from the employment culture to the individual worker can result in increased couple conflict. A vicious cycle may ensue in which the overworked partner then withdraws further from couple and family time and immerses even more intensively into work, either to make more money, get more accumulated work completed (with the usually misguided hope of thereby reducing work demands), or to escape relationship conflict. This withdrawal into work cre- ates further couple or family distress. Long hours spent on the job and lack of access to flextime, leave, or vacations are not the only temporal risk factors in the equation linking work and family stress. Over 1 in 4 dual-­earner couples has one partner doing shift work, such as a night shift. It is more common in families at lower socioeco- nomic levels (Presser, 2003), suggesting that it is not a sought-after sched- ule option but one adopted by economic necessity. Shift differences between partners leave less time for the couple relationship and are associated with greater marital distress, including higher depression levels, negative interac- tions, disagreements, and child-­related problems (Ehrenberg, Gearing-Small, Hunter, & Small, 2001; Perry-­Jenkins, Goldberg, Pierce, & Sayer, 2007). Yet other studies have documented positive effects of working nonstandard hours for relationships with children, such as increased paternal involvement when mothers work evening hours (Barnett & Gareis, 2007) and more overall time for each parent with the children (Wight, Raley, & Bianchi, 2008). Temporal dyssynchronies in parents’ work schedules need not be as extreme as shift work to create some of the associated challenges. Differ- ences of a few hours in parents’ schedules of leaving for and returning from work, when combined with children’s wake, bedtime, school, homework, and 84 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES transportation schedules, can result in significantly less opportunity for part- ners to have time together (Chenu & Robinson, 2002; Fraenkel, 2011; Fraenkel & Wilson, 2000). On the other hand, depending on their exact timing, part- ners with differing work schedules can rely on one another to cover different aspects of the children’s daily routines, coordinating efforts as a “tag team.” For instance, one partner might be able to handle the morning routine and get kids off to school, while the other is there to receive them after school and handle the evening routine. The complexity of synchronizing parents’ work schedules with one another, and with children’s schedules, and how couples negotiate this process, may be more critical to understanding the experience of work–life imbalance in dual-­earner families than long work hours of one or the other parent alone (Gareis, Barnett, & Brennan, 2003). Technology and the Work–Family Boundary Whereas some parents struggle with dyssynchronous work shifts, other prob- lems emerge when one or both parents find themselves on one long, endless shift due to virtually unlimited connectivity to the workplace provided by the proliferation of communication and information technologies. Laptops, cell phones, and other devices mean work can take place anywhere, erasing the physical boundary between home and work (Fraenkel, 2001a, 2001b, 2011; Jackson, 2005; Schieman et al., 2009). Certainly, executives and profession- als have long taken work home, but contemporary availability of multiple means of highly portable electronic linkages to work has increased this trend dramatically for working parents and has spread it somewhat across classes and occupations. As a function of this technology, a growing number of workers telecom- mute, working from home on a regular basis. This increased connectivity to work can bring benefits as well as problems. On the upside, it can save com- muting time (and is better for the environment). Depending on the demands and structures of the job, telecommuting can allow some people to work part-time and coordinate work flexibly with child and home care (Fraenkel, 2001b). When a crisis at work might otherwise have resulted in canceling or delaying a vacation or family event, now a few calls or e-mails allow the work problem to be managed from afar. On the other hand, technology and telecommuting present serious chal- lenges to limiting the encroachment of work on family life (Fraenkel, 2001a, 2001b). An increasing number of families find work invading activities that might otherwise be “work-free zones,” such as family dinners, time with kids at the playground, and vacations, as well as time for couple intimacy and for each parent to replenish energies and spirits. Although advertisements for products related to home offices always depict smiling parents working with relaxed concentration while their kids happily look on, many parents working at home report more work–­family conflict, increased spillover from work to family, and depression (Chesley, Moen, & Shore, 2003).  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 85 Work Stress and Family Stress: A Complex Relationship With increased hours, little leave or vacation time, more frequent requirements by employers for overtime, more contact with the workplace after hours, the need to assume the responsibilities of colleagues who have been “downsized,” and a workplace culture that expects constant multitasking, it is not surprising that one-third of workers report they are chronically overworked and almost 90% experience high levels of job pressure (Galinsky et al., 2005). Employees who feel overworked believe they make more mistakes, feel angrier at employ- ers, harbor more resentment toward colleagues perceived to be slacking off, and are more likely to look for another job; believe they do not take good care of themselves; and report more work-­related sleep disruption, poorer health, and higher levels of stress (Galinsky et al., 2005). Increased job-­related stress results in higher likelihood of negative work spillover into personal relationships (Neff & Karney, 2007), especially couple and family relationships. Work stress affects couples by eliciting more negative and less positive couple communication styles; by increasing the likelihood of psychological and physical problems such as sleep disorders, sexual difficul- ties, and depressed or anxious moods; and by eliciting individual’s insecurities, rigidities, and defensiveness (Bodenmann, Ledermann, & Bradbury, 2007). However, the relationship between the temporal characteristics of work life and stress, and between work stress and family difficulties, is not simple or direct. Studies suggest that it is the perception of overwork, not simply the number of hours per se, and the experience of stress, rather than number or intensity of job-­related stressors, that affect the degree of linkage between work stress and family distress (see Perry-­Jenkins, Repetti, & Crouter, 2000, for review). Put differently, “work role quality” (the degree to which a person experiences fulfillment in work) appears to be more related to overall life sat- isfaction or stress than hours per se (Brett & Stroh, 2003), although at upper limits, long hours appear to induce anxiety and distress for most workers (Galinsky et al., 2005). A number of variables moderate the relationship between work stressors and family life. In recent studies, variables earlier thought to reduce likeli- hood of job-­related stress (e.g., higher status, greater autonomy and decision- ­making power, and schedule flexibility) have been found to be associated with greater pressure, longer hours, higher expectations of dedication to the com- pany, more interpersonal conflict at work, greater emotional demands, and increased permeability of the border between work and nonwork life (Schie- man et al., 2009). In turn, this may increase stress and spillover of work stress to home and conflict with partners and children (Schieman & Reid, 2009). Adding further complexity, personality style has been found to be a medi- ating variable: For instance, whereas some workers do better with greater job autonomy, others do worse. In one study, control over job responsibili- ties was associated with better health for persons with high “self-­efficacy” (defined as those who felt competent to meet the demands of greater control 86 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES and autonomy, and did not blame themselves for negative work outcomes), but with increased likelihood of poor health for those with low self-­efficacy (Schaubroeck, Jones, & Xie, 2001). Bianchi and Milkie (2010) also emphasize the importance of a life course perspective when evaluating the impact of work stressors on individual and family functioning. There are periods in life when increased work–­family con- flict is expected, such as having young children in a dual-­earner household or caring for a disabled spouse or parent. If couples can increase their threshold for hectic schedules during these life periods, they may do better than those who continue to bemoan lack of a more relaxed and simple life. Many older persons who had expected to retire or at least decrease work pressures now need to stay employed or find a new job to meet costs of living, children’s col- lege education, and adequate health care. Some variables, such as marital quality, are both an outcome of work stress and a moderator between work stress and other outcomes, such as parent–child conflict. Likewise, work–­family conflict is both a mediator (in the relationship between time pressure and psychosomatic complaints) and an outcome variable whose relationship to work-­related time pressure is affected by other mediating variables (the employee’s work-­related cognitive and emo- tional irritation; Höge, 2008). Table 4.1 presents a list of major moderator variables, along with fre- quently studied job stressors and family outcomes, summarized from two decades of reviews in the Journal of Marriage and Family (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010; Perry-­Jenkins et al., 2000). Although most studies emphasize the impact of work stress on relation- ships, and find greater negative spillover from work into family than from fam- ily to work (Bellavia & Frone, 2005; Roehling, Moen, & Batt, 2003), the link between work and family stress is recursive or bidirectional, and the quality of family relationships and leisure time can affect the quality and productivity of work (Barnett, Gareis, & Brennan, 2009). For instance, a husband’s stress- ful job may decrease his availability or energy to his partner and children, increasing the wife’s overburden and sense of resentment. Both partners may then bring that marital distress back to the workplace, decreasing job effec- tiveness, which in turn contributes to a sense of being overwhelmed with the job, leading to further negative spillover into family relationships. A number of studies demonstrate relationships between work pressure and increased experience of conflict among multiple family roles (Ransford, Crouter, & McHale, 2008), as well as emotional distress resulting from con- flict between work and family (Gonzalez-­Morales, Peiro, & Greenglass, 2006). Linkages have been found between work stress and likelihood of parent–child conflict, and poorer child behavioral and emotional outcomes (see review by Perry-­Jenkins et al., 2000); between lack of family time and increased risky behaviors for adolescents (Crouter, Head, McHale, & Tucker, 2004); between work stress and decreased parental monitoring and knowledge of children’s lives, at least when fathers (but not mothers) had demanding jobs and there  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 87 TABLE 4.1. Variables Influencing Work-Related Family Stress Work variables Mediators and moderators Family impact Work hours Perception of work–family conflict Marital distress Degree of flexibility of Preference for more or less than Conflict with children hours currently working and adolescents Number of roles/ Perceived role overload/multiple Child behavior responsibilities/ commitments problems demands Incompatibility of work and Spouse’s depression/ Interestingness of job children’s school schedules sense of overload Too much or too little Perception of job resources Decreased shared control Worker emotional distress family time Quality of social climate/ Worker fatigue support at work Commitment to work/career Level of occupational Personality style (negative prestige affectivity, neuroticism, Type A) Hour-to-salary ratio Depression and anxiety in stressed Degree of job security or other spouse Nonstandard hours Self-efficacy and self-esteem Social support Life stage of family/ages of children Child behavior problems Parenting style Number of children Positive or negative marital quality Perceived fairness of housework and child care distribution Gendered beliefs about emotional expression and partner soothing Gender ideology/partners’ beliefs about value and acceptability of mother working Race and class was poor marital quality (Bumpus, Crouter, & McHale, 1999); between mothers feeling deprived of time with their children and decreased well-being (Nomaguchi, Milkie, & Bianchi, 2005); and between working more hours than desired and a sense of overwork, reduced sense of coping ability, and emotional distress (Galinsky et al., 2005; Moen & Yu, 2000). Discrimination and lack of support in the work environment based on partners’ sexual orien- tations or other social locations add yet another layer of stress for dual-­earner couples (Mor Barak, Findler, & Wind, 2003). Both high and low marital satisfaction may increase the link between workplace stress and family life. “Crossover,” defined as the transmission of stress and strain from one member of a dyad to another (Demerouti et al., 2005), may be more likely between close partners (Lavee & Ben-Ari, 2007), and workers who value their family roles may experience greater conflict between those roles and work. Low marital satisfaction may increase the likelihood that work stress interferes with parenting, possibly by decreasing 88 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES communication between partners or increasing stress to the point that parents withdraw from their partners and children (Bumpus et al., 1999; Ransford et al., 2008). The Role of Gender in Dual‑Earner Lifestyles Gender plays a role not only in determining income levels and work hours, but in every aspect of the relationship between work and the family (See Knudson- ­Martin, Chapter 14, this volume). Continued popular media portrayals of the negative effects on families when two parents (read “when mothers”) work (Galinsky, 2005) represent a barely disguised discomfort with the reality that mothers are and will continue to be in the workforce in the years ahead. Mid-20th-­century functionalist, psychodynamic, and sociobiological theo- ries assumed men’s proper role as the breadwinner and women’s supportive role as the homemaker and primary parent. The discomfort with women in the workplace persists despite abundant research documenting that maternal employment is not detrimental to children’s development (Gottfried, 2005), as well as the many positive mental and physical health benefits and positive rela- tional correlates for partners when both work (Baltes, Clark, & Chakrabarti, 2010). As noted earlier, paternal participation is often greater when both par- ents work (Gottfried & Gottfried, 2008), and children demonstrate multiple positive outcomes when fathers are more involved in their lives (e.g., Parke, 2002). There is abundant research indicating that quality child care provided by a variety of kin and paid caregivers has no deleterious effects on healthy child development (Brooks-Gunn, Wen-Jui, & Waldfogel, 2002). Social and work- place policies that require increased availability of child care across social classes would have an enormous effect on decreasing working parents’ anxi- eties and increasing child well-being (Gornick & Meyers, 2003; Williams & Boushey, 2010). Despite data showing that men increasingly participate in child care and domestic labor (Sayer, 2005), numerous studies have documented that women actually work more hours than men when paid work, housework, and child care are combined (for reviews, see Coltrane, 2000; Bianchi & Milkie, 2010). In a recent study at the UCLA Center on the Everyday Lives of Families (CELF), through detailed coding and categorizing over 800 hours of video footage of dual-­earner families in their homes, researchers found that mothers spent 27% of their time on housework, compared with 18% for fathers. Moreover, moth- ers spent only 11% of their time on brief periods of leisure compared fathers’ 23% (Carey, 2010). Others have found that mothers’ leisure time tends to be of lower quality than that experienced by fathers, compromised by unrelenting housework and child care demands (Mattingly & Bianchi, 2003). In addition to greater demands in the home, women carry more of the burden of attending to extended kin, especially the older generations, including the husband’s family (Lockwood, 2003). Increasing pressures for  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 89 “intensive parenting” (Walla, 2010)—a contemporary childrearing trend emphasizing greater involvement in supporting the child’s emotional and cog- nitive development—­coupled with greater demands for caring for older adult relatives make employed women the “sandwiched” generation, weighted with heavy caretaking demands both in early/middle and later adulthood (Lock- wood, 2003). Just as mothers are taking on responsibility to contribute to household income, fathers should now be expected to be full partners in coparenting (Harrington, van Deusen, & Ladge, 2010). Although there are still few studies of racial and ethnic differences in male–­female distribution of housework and child care, a recent study found that employed black men do more housework than do employed white men— yet employed black women do at least double the amount of housework their male partners do (Coltrane & Shih, 2010). The findings are mixed with regard to sharing of housework between Latino partners compared to white couples, although division of labor in Latino households is related to practical fac- tors that also influence division of housework in other families, such as time constraints and patterns of employment (Pinto & Coltrane, 2009). Latino partners tend to evaluate distribution of housework less in terms of fairness than do white couples. This difference may be attributable to the tendency of Latino women to consider marriage and family as a source of safety and a buffer against racism and classism in the broader society; to traditional Latino cultural definitions of womanhood that include expectations of suffering, sac- rifice, and deference to men (Falicov, 1998); as well as to Latino women, like many other women from ethnic and racial minority groups, regarding house- hold tasks as a highly valued aspect of motherhood (Collins, 2002; Gerstel & Sarkisian, 2006). A number of studies document the strong relationship between the degree to which women perceive housework as fairly divided with their partners and marital quality, as well as women’s rates of depression (Frisco & Wil- liams, 2003; see review by Coltrane, 2000). Despite notable changes in time allocated to housework for men and women over the past decade (Bianchi & Milkie, 2010), normative gender expectations likely contribute to contin- ued disparities. Traditional definitions of masculinity still limit many men’s involvement in housekeeping, childrearing, and other tasks perceived as “fem- inine” (Bittman, England, Sayer, Folbre, & Matheson, 2003). In some cases, a wife’s reluctance to forfeit control over the home and childrearing may inhibit greater paternal contribution (Gaunt, 2008). In other cases, women’s reluc- tance to cede control over these tasks results from men ignoring the well- tuned child care and homecare routines and procedures women have crafted through months or years of experience, with men insisting on doing it “their way” (Fraenkel, 2011). Couple therapists can assist men intent on sharing these responsibilities to recognize the importance of adopting and refining, rather than replacing, women’s hard-­wrought domestic routines. In couple therapy, men often argue that because of their long work hours, they should not be expected to do more housework. Therapists may find it 90 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES useful to point out the distinction between the experienced value and rewards of paid work versus housework and child care, as a prelude to suggesting that in the interest of fairness to their female partners (and improving wives’ marital satisfaction), men may need to share more household responsibili- ties. A therapist might cite Coltrane (2000, p. 1225), who writes, “The single most important predictor of a wife’s fairness evaluation is what portion of the housework her husband contributes,” and that “marital satisfaction increases in relation to the amount of routine housework that is shared by spouses.” (Coltrane, 2000, p. 1225). Likewise, studies have found men’s housework to be significantly related to future marital satisfaction and lower likelihood of divorce (Sigle-­Rushton, 2010). If one parent leaves the workforce at least temporarily in a work–life bal- ancing strategy called “scaling back” (Becker & Moen, 1999), it is usually the mother (Gornick & Meyers, 2003), who most often does so to care for infants, small children, and older adult family members. Biologically influenced aspects of attachment, still-­powerful cultural scripts about proper gender roles, hus- bands’ higher income, and workplace biases influence these decisions (Galin- sky, 2005; Gottfried, 2005). Even when the partners initially ascribe to a more equitable sharing of household and child care responsibilities, once women leave their jobs to be home full-time, the couple tends to slide into the tradi- tional male breadwinner–­female homemaker roles (Walsh, 1989). Gender con- struction theory suggests that many women continue to be the primary care- takers, despite their increasing presence in the workforce, because the affective meanings they ascribe to caring for children and the home are associated with gendered norms of accountability for these responsibilities (Kroska, 2003). Of course, men’s and women’s beliefs about their proper roles derive from the larger set of patriarchal cultural and religious values and mores, especially when reinforced by spouses, extended families, and the media. A number of studies suggest that dual-­earner families do best when adult partners hold flexible gender role assumptions (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Ger- son, 2010; Zimmerman, Haddock, Current, & Ziemba, 2003). Marital qual- ity tends to be negatively affected by wives earning more than their husbands when the men attach great self-­definitional value to their earnings and role as breadwinner, as many men still do (Brennan, Barnett, & Gareis, 2001). By choosing one frequently adopted strategy of avoiding work–­family conflicts—­delaying pregnancy until well into their 30s or even 40s (Lock- wood, 2003)—women potentially incur health problems, and couples com- monly experience emotional distress if they encounter fertility difficulties (Peterson, Newton, Rosen, & Schulman, 2006). Given the higher rates of multiple births linked to fertility-­enhancing medical procedures, couples who delay having a child may end up with a larger child care load all at once. Accordingly, some couples choose to limit family size or not to have children at all (Altucher & Williams, 2003). In summary, at many levels, despite evidence of important shifts toward gender equity in work and family roles, this is still a work in progress, and  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 91 both partners’ beliefs about gender are deeply embedded in how they approach and feel about navigating the challenges of blending work and family life. But as Gerson (2010) and Williams (2010) emphasize, gendered beliefs and prac- tices regarding men’s and women’s appropriate and required workplace and family roles are situated and promulgated in the larger culture, and workplace policies and mores make it difficult for men to step back from job expectations to share more of the responsibilities and joys of childrearing and family life. Yet many couples have found ways to attain better balance, and gender equity and fairness are at the heart of their strategies. Successful Strategies in Dual‑Earner Families It is important to examine the recursive pathways linking work stress with individual and family well-being from a positive-­coping, family resilience perspective (Walsh, 2006). Recent studies indicate that many dual-­earner families cope fairly successfully and even thrive (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Halpern & Tan, 2009). We need to identify the variables that enable couples to navigate work and family life, and contribute to the well-being of all family members. Accordingly, the theoretical framework for dual earners has increas- ingly moved from a perspective of “conflict” (i.e., incompatibility of work–­ family roles) or “scarcity” (i.e., resources given to one role lead to depletion in another) to one that better captures emerging data showing the physical, men- tal health, and relational benefits that accrue when men and women inhabit multiple roles (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), as well as the positive spillover and modeling for children when parents enjoy their work lives and share that enjoyment with their children (Galinsky, 1999). Increasingly, studies of successful coping with dual earnership are exam- ining more ethnically and racially diverse couples (Gerson, 2010), as well as gay and lesbian couples (Bergman et al., 2010; Gartrell, Rodas, Deck, Peyser, & Banks, 2006; Solomon et al., 2005). All echo the main earlier findings of Zimmerman, Haddock, and colleagues (Haddock, Zimmerman, Ziemba, & Current, 2001; Zimmerman et al., 2003), who interviewed 47 mostly white, well-­educated, middle-class heterosexual couples that viewed themselves as benefiting from a dual-­earner lifestyle, and as having developed means of achieving a successful blend between work and family. The similar strategies found across couples differing in social class demonstrate the fundamental importance of equity, mutual respect, and fairness between partners, and the need to maintain firm temporal boundaries between work time and family time. Specifically, philosophies and practices included the following: Prioritizing family time and well-being Emphasizing overall equality and partnership, including joint deci- sion making, equal influence over finances, and joint responsibility for housework 92 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Partners’ equal valuing of each other’s work and life goals Sharing the child care and “emotion work” of family life Maximizing play and fun at home Concentrating on work while at the workplace Taking pride in family and in balancing multiple roles, and believing the family benefits from both parents working (rather than absorbing the dominant cultural narrative of harm) Living simply, which includes limiting activities that impede active family engagement Adopting high but realistic expectations about household management; employing planning strategies that save time Being proactive in decision making and remaining conscious of time’s value One of the most robust predictors of individual wellbeing and lower family–work conflict is a boundary management strategy involving a more fixed work schedule and less permeability between work and family domains (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006). Drawing on her survey of parents and children, Galinsky (1999) outlined a number of approaches to navigating sometimes the stressful transition from home to work and from work to home. Her suggestions include the following: Getting organized the night before Setting wake-up times that decrease rushing Creating rituals for saying good-bye to children and for reengaging after work Expecting such reconnection to include children expressing their daily problems Finding trustworthy child care and education; creating backup child care plans Creating transitional rituals into and out of work Maintaining focused, uninterrupted time with kids just to “hang out” Taking some time to decompress after particularly stressful work days Galinsky (1999) also emphasizes the need for parents to talk “intention- ally,” not apologetically, about their work, giving them a sense of their enjoy- ment and excitement. The vital importance of building in shared, pleasurable leisure time should be underscored. The impact of diminished leisure time for dual-­earner fami- lies (Jacobs & Gerson, 2004) is compounded by the availability of only small “chunks” of leisure time in the context of a highly regimented schedule, and the feeling that free time is “decompression” time after stressful work experi- ences rather than time for activities that induce positive feelings (Zvonkovic, Notter, & Peters, 2006).  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 93 The changing rhythm in family life must be addressed (Bianchi, Robinson, & Milkie, 2006). Today, children as well as their parents, are overscheduled in school and outside activities, and parents must juggle complex schedules to shuttle their children from place to place and attend sports, music, and other events in which they are involved. Many parents also have long commuting time to and from work. Work and household tasks sometimes trump time for leisure when both parents work. But when families act more intentionally (Doherty, 2002) to engage in rituals of connection, as well as in sustained, active leisure rather than unscheduled “dribbles” in front of the TV (Zvonk- ovic et al., 2006), this created and protected free time can be an opportunity for reconnection and revitalization. Family leisure time is an opportunity to strengthen relationships among members, allowing the family unit to serve as a critical buffer against the stress of a fast-paced work life. Over the past two decades of working clinically with dual-­earner fami- lies, Fraenkel has developed a number of attitude shifts and practices that decrease stress and maintain positive connection between partners, thus benefiting interactions with children (Fraenkel, 1994, 1998a, 1998b, 2001a, 2001b, 2011; Fraenkel & Wilson, 2000). In terms of attitudes, he identifies five myths that interfere with realistic coping with time constraints and cre- ation of couple and family time: (1) the myth of “spontaneity,” which holds that couple sex and other forms of intimacy, as well as family fun, must occur spontaneously to feel authentic, and so should not be scheduled; (2) the myth of “infinite perfectibility,” which holds that the family time crunch is wholly resolvable through better time management, and that no compromises need be made in the number of activities in which families attempt to engage; (3) the myth of “total control,” which is the belief that families hold complete autonomy over their time and are to blame if they fail to achieve optimal work–life balance 4) the myth of “quality time,” which holds that as long as family members are fully focused on one another during the little “chunks” of leisure time they have, there is no need for longer periods of “quantity time”; and (5) the myth that housework and chores must be sequestered from family fun and couple intimacy. These myths about how to attain adequate couple and family time trans- late into two unrealistic beliefs about work–­family balance, strongly supported by corporate culture, self-help books, and other popular media. One notion is that by working even harder, multitasking, and implementing more effec- tive time management skills, couples will be able to “find” or “free up” more time for their relationships. Another faulty belief is that attaining optimal work–­family balance means arriving at a state of perfect, tensionless equa- nimity. Rather, the reality of a dynamic balance involves negotiating inevi- table tensions and adjustments between time dedicated to career and work, and time dedicated to couple and family time, as well as to other life demands, activities, and relationships. If approached proactively, these tensions among various relationships and endeavors can help to affirm in an ongoing way the 94 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES couple’s fundamental values and choices, lending those choices more meaning and sense of purpose (Fraenkel, 2011). If families can deconstruct and evade the influence of these myths about couple and family time, and these unattainable standards for work–life bal- ance, they can discover new pathways to work–­family balance. Useful work–­ family balance practices include the following: 1. Creating regular “rhythms” of pleasurable couple and family time together, rather than hoping eventually to “find time.” 2. Accepting the need to prioritize certain activities and let others go for the time being. 3. Recognizing the influence on family time of work, school, older family members, health care, and other contexts and relationships, and being less blaming of oneself and one another when the “schedule” does not quite work out. 4. Creating regular periods for quality time that is not necessarily pre­ structured, allowing opportunities for spontaneity and serendipity, boredom that leads to creativity, and just for hanging out. 5. Utilizing the natural rhythms of housework and chores as opportuni- ties for connection and fun. To decrease the transmission of negative affect from work into family interactions, Fraenkel recommends a practice called the decompression cham- ber (Fraenkel, 1998a, 2011). Each partner makes a list of afterwork activities (solo or conjoint) he or she finds best to relax and to transition into the rest of the evening (e.g., taking a shower, reading the paper, watching a bit of televi- sion, exercise, yoga and meditation, playing with the children, talking about the events of the day). The partners then compare their lists and develop a “decompression sequence” that accommodates one another’s needs as much as possible and also recognizes the need to accomplish various home and child care tasks. This practice helps resolve the frequent tug-of-war over each part- ner’s needs. It also provides an opening for partners to talk about their long- ings for soothing and care from one another—an aspect of interaction found highly predictive of relationship satisfaction and stability (Gottman, Coan, Carrère, & Swanson, 1998)—and to reveal their needs for “alone time.” In many cases, it is also a useful entree into conversations about each partner’s beliefs and expectations, borne from both past experience and family and cul- ture of origin, about how to handle difficult emotions emerging from work. To increase the sense of connection between partners with long hours apart, Fraenkel (1998b, 2011) recommends a practice called the “60-second pleasure point.” Partners engage in fun, pleasurable, and sensual activities they can do together that each last 60 seconds or less, such as short massages, a hug or kiss, leaving notes in each other’s wallets, sending loving messages, and planning what to do when they have more time. Couples who utilize this technique typically report an enhanced sense of connection across the day,  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 95 which in turn decreases their anxiety about reconnecting at day’s end, taking pressure off this transition. Although research has yet to be conducted on this technique, it is supported by the Gottman et al. (1998) findings about the positive, long-term effects on marital satisfaction and stability of part- ners’ initiating and responding to each other’s bids for often-short periods of attention. More important than any specific technique or practice, it is critical for adult partners to maintain an open and ongoing dialogue about the challenges they face. This includes recognition of the influences on their experience of personal finances, a pile-up of stress events, and cultural beliefs about work, gender roles, and the good life, some of which they may bring from their fami- lies of origin. Recognizing the power of these conditions to shape individual and family experience can allow partners to sustain a nonjudgmental attitude that engenders mutual support. Finally, recognizing that they are not alone in the struggle to balance work and home may lead to new dialogues and action within workplaces, communities, and political arenas that promote more widespread, family-­friendly policies. For healthy family functioning, changes in the mores of the work culture and broader culture are essential in order for employees to avail themselves of these policies. Ultimately, the domains of work and family life should not be set in competition with one another, but rather should interact in a dynamic balance that contributes to every family member’s well-being. References Altucher, K. A., & Williams, L. B. (2003). Family clocks: Timing parenthood. In P. Moen (Ed.), It’s about time: Couples and careers (pp. 49–59). Ithaca, NY: Cor- nell University Press. Baltes, B. B., Clark, M., & Chakrabarti, M. (2010). Work–life balance: The roles of work–­family conflict and work–­family facilitation. In A. P. Linley, S. Har- rington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 201–212). New York: Oxford University Press. Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2000a). Reduced-hours employment: The relation- ship between difficulty of trade-offs and quality of life. Work and Occupations, 27, 168–187. Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2000b). Reduced-hours, job-role quality and life sat- isfaction among married women physicians with children. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 358–364. Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2007). Shift work, parenting behaviors, and children’s socioemotional well-being: A within-­family study. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 727–748. Barnett, R. C., Gareis, K.C., & Brennan, R. T. (2009). Reconsidering work time: A multivariate longitudinal within-­couple analysis. Community, Work and Fam- ily, 12, 105–133. Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American Psy- chologist, 56, 781–796. 96 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Becker, P. E., & Moen, P. (1999). Scaling back: Dual-­earner couples’ work–­family strategies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 995–1007. Belkin, L. (2010). Calling Mr. Mom? New York Times Magazine. Retrieved October 21, 2010, from www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/magazine/24fob-wwln-t.html?_ r=1&emc=eta1. Bellavia, G. M., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Work–­family conflict. In J. Barling, E. K. Kel- loway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 113–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bergman, K., Rubio, R. J., Green, R. J., & Padrón, E. (2010). Gay men who become fathers via surrogacy: The transition to parenthood. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 111–141. Bianchi, S. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 705–725. Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bittman, M., England, P., Sayer, L., Folbre, N., & Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender trump money?: Bargaining and time in household work. American Jour- nal of Sociology, 109, 186–214. Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfac- tion in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14, 551–569. Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., Kim, S. S., & Brownfield, E. (2005). The 2005 National Study of Employers. New York: Families & Work Institute. Brennan, R. T., Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2001). When she earns more than he does: A longitudinal study of dual-­earner couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 168–182. Brett, J., & Stroh, L. (2003). Working 61-plus hours a week: Why do managers do it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 67–78. Brooks-Gunn, J., Wen-Jui, H., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Maternal employment and child cognitive outcomes in the first three years of life: The NICHD study of early child care. Child Development, 73, 1052–1072. Bumpus, M. F., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (1999). Work demands of dual- ­earner couples: Implications for parents’ knowledge about children’s daily lives in middle childhood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 465–475. Carey, B. (May 23, 2010). Families’ every fuss, archived and analyzed. The New York Times, p. A1. Retrieved October 30, 2010, from www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/ science/23family.html?_ r=1&scp=1&sq=benedict%20carey%20may%20 23%202010&st=cse. Chenu, A., & Robinson, J. P. (2002). Synchronicity in the work schedules of working couples. Monthly Labor Review, 125, 55–63. Chesley, N., Moen, P., & Shore, R. P. (2003). The new technology climate. In P. Moen (Ed.), It’s about time: Couples and careers (pp. 220–241). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Collins, P. H. (2002). Work, family and black women’s oppression. In B. R. Hare (Ed.), 2001 Race odyssey: African Americans and sociology (pp. 114–139). Syra- cuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1208–1233.  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 97 Coltrane, S., & Shih, K. Y. (2010). Gender and the division of labor. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 401– 422). New York: Springer. Crouter, A. C., Head, M. R., McHale, S. M., & Tucker, C. J. (2004). Family time and the psychosocial adjustment of adolescent siblings and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 147–162. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Spillover and crossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction among dual-­earner parents. Journal of Voca- tional Behavior, 67, 266–289. Doherty, W. J. (2002). The intentional family: Simple rituals to strengthen family ties. New York: Quill/HarperCollins. Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: Flexible policies, organizational commit- ment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42, 145–167. Ehrenberg, M. F., Gearing-Small, M., Hunter, M. A., & Small, B. J. (2001). Childcare task division and shared parenting attitudes in dual-­earner families with young children. Family Relations, 50, 143–154. Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in America. New York: Metropolitan Books. Falicov, C. J. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York: Guilford Press. Fraenkel, P. (1994). Time and rhythm in couples. Family Process, 33, 37–51. Fraenkel, P. (1998a). Time and couples: Part I. The decompression chamber. In T. Nel- son & T. Trepper (Eds.), 101 interventions in family therapy (Vol. 2, pp. 140– 144). West Hazleton, PA: Haworth. Fraenkel, P. (1998b). Time and couples: Part II. The sixty second pleasure point. In T. Nelson & T. Trepper (Eds.), 101 interventions in family therapy (Vol. II, pp. 145–149). West Hazleton, PA: Haworth. Fraenkel, P. (2001a). The beeper in the bedroom: Technology has become a therapeu- tic issue. Psychotherapy Networker, 25, 22–65. Fraenkel, P. (2001b). The place of time in couple and family therapy. In K. Daly (Ed.), Minding the time in family experience: Emerging perspectives and issues (pp. 283–310). London: JAI. Fraenkel, P. (2011). Sync your relationship, save your marriage: Four steps to getting back on track. New York: Palgrave-­Macmillan. Fraenkel, P., & Wilson, S. (2000). Clocks, calendars, and couples: Time and the rhythms of relationships. In P. Papp (Ed.), Couples on the fault line: New direc- tions for therapists (pp. 63–103). New York: Guilford Press. Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-­earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51–73. Galinsky, E. (1999). Ask the children: What America’s children really think about working parents. New York: Morrow. Galinsky, E. (2005). Children’s perspectives of employed mothers and fathers: Closing the gap between public debates and research findings. In D. F. Halpern & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), From work–­family balance to work–­family interaction: Chang- ing the metaphor (pp. 219–236). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Galinsky, E., Aumann, K., & Bond, J. T. (2009). Times are changing: Gender and generation at work and at home: The 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce. New York: Families & Work Institute. 98 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., Kim, S. S., Backon, L., Brownfield, E., & Sakai, K. (2005). Overwork in America: When the way we work becomes too much. New York: Families & Work Institute. Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Sakai, K. (2008). The 2008 National Study of Employers. New York: Families & Work Institute. Galinsky, E., Kim, S. S., & Bond, J. T. (2001). Feeling overworked: When work becomes too much. New York: Families & Work Institute. Gareis, K. C., Barnett, R. C., & Brennan, R. T. (2003). Individual and crossover effects of work schedule fit: A within-­couples analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 1041–1054. Gartrell, N., Rodas, C., Deck, A., Peyser, H., & Banks, A. (2006). The USA National Lesbian Family Study: Interviews with mothers of 10-year-olds. Feminism and Psychology, 16, 175–192. Gaunt, R. (2008). Maternal gatekeeping: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 373–395. Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family, work, and gender in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Gerstel, N., & Sarkisian, N. (2006). Sociological perspectives on families and work: The import of gender, class and race. In M. Pitt-­Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook (pp. 237–265). New York: Erl- baum. Gonzalez-­Morales, M., Peiro, J., & Greenglass, E. (2006). Coping and distress in organizations: The role of gender in work stress. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 228–248. Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gottfried, A. E. (2005). Maternal and dual-­earner employment and children’s devel- opment: Redefining the research agenda. In D. F. Halpern & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), From work–­family balance to work–­family interaction: Changing the metaphor (pp. 197–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2008). The upside of maternal and dual-­earner employment: A focus on positive family adaptations, home environments, and child development in the Fullerton Longitudinal Study. In A. Marcus-­Newhall, D. F. Halpern, & S. J. Tan (Eds.), The changing realities of work and families: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 25–42). New York: Blackwell. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrère, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital hap- piness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Fam- ily, 60, 5–22. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–­family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 72–92. Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Ziemba, S. J., & Current, L. R. (2001). Ten adaptive strategies for family and work balance: Advice from successful families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 445–458. Halpern, D. F., & Murphy, S. E. (2005). From balance to integration: Why the meta- phor is important. In D. F. Halpern & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), From work–­family balance to work–­family interaction: Changing the metaphor (pp. 3–9). Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum. Halpern, D. F., & Tan, S. J. (2009). Combining work and family: From conflict to  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 99 compatible. In J. H. Bray & M. Stanton (Eds.), The Wiley–­Blackwell handbook of family psychology (pp. 564–575). New York: Blackwell. Han, W., & Waldfogel, J. (2003). Parental leave: The impact of recent legislation on parents’ leave taking. Demography, 40, 191–200. Harrington, B., van Deusen, F., & Ladge, J. (2010). The new dad: Exploring father- hood within a career context. Boston: Boston College Center for Work & Fam- ily. Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Holt. Höge, T. (2008). When work strain transcends psychological boundaries: An inquiry into the relationship between time pressure, irritation, work–­family conflict, and psychosomatic complaints. Stress and Health, 25, 41–51. Howe, G., Levy, M., & Caplan, R. (2004). Job loss and depressive symptoms in cou- ples: Common stressors, stress transmission, or relationship disruption? Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 639–650. Jackson, M. (2005). The limits of connectivity: Technology and 21st-­century life. In D. F. Halpern & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), From work–­family balance to work–­family interaction: Changing the metaphor (pp. 135–150). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2004). The time divide: Work, family and gender inequal- ity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–­family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347–367. Kroska, A. (2003). Investigating gender differences in the meaning of household chores and child care. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 456–473. Kroska, A. (2004). Divisions of domestic work: Revising and expanding the theoreti- cal explanations. Journal of Family Issues, 25(7), 900–932. Lavee, Y., & Ben-Ari, A. (2007). Relationship of dyadic closeness with work-­related stress: A daily diary study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1021–1035. Levine, J. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (1997). Working fathers: New strategies for balancing work and family. New York: Harcourt Brace. Lockwood, N. (2003). Work/life balance: Challenges and solutions. Society for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, June. Retrieved Novem- ber 7, 2010, from www.allbusiness.com/specialty-­businesses/home-based- ­businesses-work/567760-1.html. Mattingly, M. J., & Bianchi, S. M. (2003). Gender differences in the quantity and quality of free time: The U.S. experience. Social Forces, 81, 999–1030. Moen, P., & Yu, Y. (2000). Effective work/life strategies: Working couples, work con- ditions, gender, and life quality. Social Problems, 47, 291–326. Mor Barak, M. E., Findler, L., & Wind, L. H. (2003). Cross-­cultural aspects of diver- sity and well-being in the workplace: An international perspective. Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation, 4, 145–169. Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2007). Stress crossover in newlywed marriage: A longi- tudinal and dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 594–607. Nomaguchi, K. M., Milkie, M. A., & Bianchi, S. M. (2005). Time strains and psycho- logical well-being: Do dual-­earner mothers and fathers differ? Journal of Family Issues, 26, 756–792. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-­operation and Development), OECD stat 100 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES extracts, average annual hours actually worked per worker. Retrieved May 12, 2010, from stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?datasetcode=anhrs. Parke, R. D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 27–73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Perry-­Jenkins, M., Goldberg, A. E., Pierce, C. P., & Sayer, A. G. (2007). Shift work, role overload and transition into parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 123–138. Perry-­Jenkins, M., Repetti, R. L., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Work and family in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 981–998. Peterson, B. D., Newton, C. R., Rosen, K. H., & Schulman, R. S. (2006). Coping pro- cesses of couples experiencing infertility. Family Relations, 55, 227–239. Pinto, K. M., & Coltrane, S. (2009). Divisions of labor in Mexican origin and Anglo families: Structure and culture. Sex Roles, 60, 482–495. Presser, H. B. (2003). Working in a 24/7 economy. New York: Russell Sage Founda- tion. Probst, T. M. (2005). Economic stressors. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 267–297). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ransford, C. R., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2008). Implications of work pres- sure and supervisor support for fathers’, mothers’, and adolescents’ relationships and well-being in dual-­earner families. Community, Work, and Family, 11, 37–60. Ray, R. (2008, September). A detailed look at parental leave policies in 21 OECD coun- tries. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved May 22, 2010, from www.emplaw.co.uk/content/index?startpage=data/20033221. htm. Roehling, P. V., Moen, P., & Batt, R. (2003). Spillover. In P. Moen (Ed.), It’s about time: Couples and careers (pp. 101–121). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sayer, L. C. (2005). Gender, time, and inequality: Trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid work, and free time. Social Forces, 84, 285–303. Schaubroeck, J., Jones, J. R., & Xie, J. L. (2001). Individual differences in utilizing control to cope with job demands: Effects on susceptibility to infectious disease. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 265–278. Schieman, S., Milkie, M. A., & Glavin, P. (2009). When work interferes with life: The social distribution of work–­nonwork interference and the influence of work- ­related demands and resources. American Sociological Review, 74, 966–988. Schieman, S., & Reid, S. (2009). Job authority and health: Unraveling the compet- ing suppression and explanatory influences. Social Science and Medicine, 69, 1616–1624. Schneider, B., & Waite, L. J. (2005). Why study working families? In B. Schneider & L. J. Waite (Eds.), Being together, working apart: Dual career families and the work–life balance (pp. 3–17). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sigle-­Rushton, W. (2010). Men’s unpaid work and divorce: Reassessing specialization and trade in British families. Journal Feminist Economics, 16, 1–26. Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2005). Money, housework, sex, and conflict: Same-sex couples and heterosexual married siblings. Sex Roles, 52, 561–575. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Employment characteristics of families in 2009. Available online at www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm.  Contemporary Two-­Parent Families 101 U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). Women in management: Analysis of female managers’ representation, characteristics, and pay (GAO-10–892R). Retrieved October 20, 2010, from www.gao.gov/new.items/d10892r.pdf. Walla, G. (2010). Mothers’ experiences with intensive parenting and brain develop- ment discourse. Women’s Studies International Forum, 33, 253–263. Walsh, F. (1989). Reconsidering gender in the “marital quid pro quo.” In M. McGol- drick, C. Anderson, & F. Walsh (Eds.), Women in families: A framework for family therapy (pp. 267–285). New York: Norton. Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Wang, R., & Bianchi, S. M. (2009). ATUS fathers’ involvement in childcare. Social Indicators Research, 93, 141–145. Wight, V. R., Raley, S. B., & Bianchi, S. M. (2008). Time for children, one’s spouse, and oneself among parents who work nonstandard hours. Social Forces, 87, 243–274. Williams, J. C. (2010). Reshaping the work–­family debate: Why men and class mat- ter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Williams, J. C., & Boushey, H. (2010, January). The three faces of work–­family con- flict: The poor, the professionals, and the missing middle. Washington, DC: Cen- ter for American Progress. Zimmerman, T. S., Haddock, S. A., Current, L. R., & Ziemba, S. (2003). Intimate partnership: Foundation to the successful balance of family and work. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 107–124. Zvonkovic, A. M., Notter, M. L., & Peters, C. L. (2006). Family studies: Situating everyday family life at work, in time and across contexts. In M. Pitt-­Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook (pp. 141–164). New York: Erlbaum.