Scenarios for the Equal Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the 
Transition to Parenthood in Germany

Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz

Abstract: On the basis of a qualitative longitudinal study of 14 German couples, 
the conditions that are necessary and suffi cient for an equal division of labour in 
the transition to parenthood are examined in an explorative way. Based on the as-
sumption that couples with educational homogamy on a high level are probably 
more prone and suffi ciently assertive to establish egalitarian relationships, we show 
that such arrangements cannot be sustained or achieved without the existence of 
specifi c contiguous conditions. A comparison of attitudes, family values and norms 
with actual everyday routines also suggests in many cases the well-known “verbal 
open-mindedness and rigid behaviour”.

Keywords: Division of labour in the household · Transition to parenthood · 
Longitudinal study · Qualitative data · Germany

1 Introduction

The transition to fi rst parenthood involves major changes to couples’ everyday lives 
with consequences which can hardly be adequately assessed and planned for in 
advance. So far, the processes of decision making and coping with everyday life 
during this phase as well as the resulting longer-term consequences for couple’s 
equal division of labour have rarely been analysed. Particularly for career-oriented 
and similarly (highly) educated couples the question arises how employment and 
family work can be shared in the transition to parenthood. Traditional gender roles, 
which generally assume complementary productivity by the partners, do not offer 
much orientation to such couples.

Although in opinion polls more and more people recently desire an equal di-
vision of labour (e.g. Lück 2009), this “verbal open-mindedness” continues to be 
contrasted in everyday life by a “rigid behaviour” (Beck/Beck-Gernsheim 1995: 20). 
For example, 45 percent of fathers would like to take parental leave (Institut für 
Demoskopie 2005: 11-12), yet under the conditions of the new parental leave regu-

Comparative Population Studies – Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft
Vol. 39, 3 (2014): 615-644 (Date of release: 18.04.2013)

© Federal Institute for Population Research 2013  URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de
DOI: 10.4232/10.CPoS-2013-06en   URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2013-06en2



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz616

lations, only about 19 percent actually do so (Statistisches Bundesamt 2010: Table 
1). Research on housework reveals a similar picture. Although at the beginning of 
intimate relationships housework is frequently shared equally, with increased re-
lationship duration and in particular following the birth of the fi rst child, however, 
responsibilities are shifted increasingly towards the women. Couples arranging the 
division of labour equally on a sustained basis are still relatively rare (cf. e.g. Schulz 
2010). Hence, gender-specifi c division of labour is changing far more slowly than the 
corresponding attitudes.1

According to the egalitarian values model (van Berkel/de Graaf 1999), lasting 
egalitarian arrangements can be expected primarily among couples in which both 
partners have a high level of education and therefore, according to the assump-
tion, have not only a similar degree of human capital, but are also rather open to 
liberal values and gender egalitarianism. Our qualitative empirical study focuses 
on 14 such couples in the transition to parenthood. In the following, we will at fi rst 
discuss the theoretical expectations of the model in detail. It has become customary 
in the literature about the gendered division of labour to at least mention a variety 
of theories and mechanisms concerning the division of paid and unpaid work (e.g. 
Becker’s human resource approach, different resource theories or the “doing gen-
der” approach), because none of the established theories alone can comprehen-
sively explain the division of paid and unpaid work in intimate relationships (Wen-
gler et al. 2009). However, since we are not striving for a theory-testing analysis, 
but are exploratively seeking specifi c conditions underlying the observed arrange-
ments, which for all intents and purposes go beyond the range of the established 
approaches, we deem the egalitarian values model as quite suffi cient as a heuristic 
starting point for reconstructing the couple biographies.

In the fi rst empirical step, we illuminate the individual components of the model, 
namely which educational constellations the couples exhibit, which attitudes the 
partners have, which types of division of labour they practised before, during and 
after the transition to parenthood and how individual normative beliefs and every-
day routines are correlated.

Nonetheless, it appears that a high level of education and a greater open-mind-
edness towards democratic arrangements is merely a necessary and not yet a suf-
fi cient prerequisite for lastingly breaking down traditional structures if considering 
that tendencies of traditionalisation are also detectable in couples with educational 
homogamy on a high level (cf. Schulz 2010). In a second empirical step, we therefore 
examine which conditions lead to some couples resisting the traditionalising effect 
of the transition to parenthood with regard to the division of labour, while others are 
not able to do so. In this way, we gain indications of which conditions may be suf-
fi cient for a successful egalitarian division of labour. 

1 We use the terms attitudes, values, orientations etc. following the suggestions that are going to 
be discussed in the editorial of the special issue to which this article will be assigned.



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 617

2 Theoretical considerations: The egalitarian values model

Many empirical studies about the value change among women and men supply 
evidence that young couples are increasingly questioning traditional gender roles 
and developing egalitarian ideals of living together (e.g. Lück 2009). The question 
of which conditions are necessary in order to implement this normative change in 
actual everyday routines is investigated by van Berkel and de Graaf (1999) in their 
egalitarian values model using the division of housework as example.

The basis of their argumentation is the assumption that the education of the 
individuals can indicate specifi c values, attitudes and gender role orientations, as 
well as being interpreted as human capital. In the fi rst case, van Berkel and de Graaf 
(1999) anticipate a negative relation between the educational level and the time 
spent doing housework by men and women, since taking up household duties rais-
es the opportunity costs of lost employment income. At the couple level, based 
on resource theoretical arguments this results in various constellations of which 
the theoretically most interesting is that of couples with educational homogamy. 
In these cases, the resource theories (cf. e.g. Blau 1964; Ott 1992) would predict an 
equal distribution of housework between the partners. In all other cases the division 
of labour is determined by the difference in the educational levels of the partners, 
whereby the partner with a higher level of education tends to do less housework (cf. 
Schulz 2010).

Another expectation with regard to the division of labour arises when consider-
ing the effect of the educational level as different support for values of equality and 
equity: “Whereas for the lower educated inequality between the sexes is given, 
the higher educated are aiming at gender equality in public and private spheres as 
much as possible” (van Berkel/de Graaf 1999: 790).

Against this background, van Berkel and de Graaf (1999) argue that an equal dis-
tribution of housework will not be achieved in all homogamous couples, but that the 
level of homogamy is also relevant. They only anticipate an egalitarian division of 
housework when both partners have a high level of education, since such couples 
are more inclined to pursue democratic values. These not only include tolerance, 
freedom and equality, but also gender-specifi c egalitarianism. By contrast, among 
couples with lower levels of education, traditional gender roles are continuously 
predominant. To support this argument, van Berkel and de Graaf (1999: 790) use 
empirical evidence from research on attitude and modernisation theory. It appears, 
for instance, that there is largely agreement in the literature on democratisation 
processes that a higher level of education is linked with greater approval for demo-
cratic values of equality and equity, which is also refl ected in everyday actions. 
Also, modernisation theorists have pointed out that the educational expansion is 
one of the major factors determining the change of family and gender roles in west-
ern industrial nations. Besides the economical aspects associated with this, it also 
accounts for cultural changes with regard to once deeply rooted values and ideals 
(cf. e.g. also Lück 2009).

In their study for the Netherlands, van Berkel and de Graaf (1999) found em-
pirical evidence for their considerations. Further indications in favour of the model 



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz618

are found in a Danish study by Bonke and Esping-Andersen (2011). Using time use 
data, they show that time used for childcare tends to be equally distributed among 
couples with educational homogamy on a high level, in particular because the men 
in these couples are considerably more involved than in couples with other educa-
tional constellations. They also interpret their fi nding stressing the signifi cance of 
values and attitudes. A third indication that this specifi c couple constellation may 
stimulate greater gender equality in intimate relationships is provided by Green-
stein (1996). Using US data, he shows that it is not enough if only one of the partners 
in a marriage pursues liberal gender role orientations to avoid traditional house-
work patterns. In his cross-sectional study, he reveals that the chances for turning 
away from traditional patterns in everyday life are the greatest if both partners have 
a “non-traditional” orientation (cf. also Künzler/Walter 2001: 195). Grasping educa-
tion as an indicator for these “non-traditional” orientations, this interpretation cor-
responds to that of the egalitarian values model of van Berkel and de Graaf (1999). 
Finally, in his study of the division of housework in the course of marriages, Schulz 
(2010) fi nds empirical evidence in favour of the egalitarian values model for Western 
Germany.

Since it can be assumed that the relationship between educational level and 
approval of more egalitarian divisions of labour does not only apply to housework, 
but also to childcare and employment, we generalise the egalitarian values model 
in this manner. Hence, the working hypothesis for our qualitative empirical study 
is that the tendency of couples to fairly share employment and family tasks in the 
course of their relationship and specifi cally in the transition to parenthood is more 
pronounced among couples with educational homogamy on a high level; at the 
same time, these couples should show the lowest propensity to.

The discrepancies between the results of the attitude measurements and studies 
of actual everyday realities are, however, often obvious. Compared to couples with 
other educational compositions highly educated homogamous couples may exhibit 
an increased propensity to change their arrangement over the course of their re-
lationships towards an equal division of labour or to retain such an arrangement; 
however this does not mean that they are basically able to resist tendencies to tra-
ditionalise. As the longitudinal study by Schulz (2010) on the division of housework 
shows, traditionalisation is the most frequent pattern among these couples, but to a 
lesser extent than among couples, for example, in which the man has a higher edu-
cational level than the woman. In the population average this leads to the continued 
dominance of the traditional division of labour among couples in Germany as in all 
other western industrial nations (cf. for Germany e.g. Huinink/Röhler 2005; Kühhirt 
2011; Röhler/Huinink 2010; Schulz 2010; Wengler et al. 2009; international: e.g. Bax-
ter et al. 2008; Kaufmann 2005; Schober 2011; Wiesmann 2010).

In a qualitative study of dual earner couples working in science, Schulte (2002) 
showed that a high level of education is not “automatically” accompanied by an 
equal division of labour. Buchebner-Ferstl and Rille-Pfeiffer (2008) demonstrate, 
also using qualitative interviews, how personal preferences concerning paid work 
and values play a role with regard to an equal division of childcare, while they are 
less explanatory for the division of housework.



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 619

Against this background, we anticipate that a higher level of education paired 
with greater open-mindedness towards egalitarian arrangements is not a suffi cient 
condition ensuring a lasting breakdown of traditional gender-specifi c structures in 
intimate relationships. In fact, the combination of circumstances in everyday life 
must also enable to practise an egalitarian division of labour. Therefore in this em-
pirical study we search for the conditions that differentiate those couples who are 
successful in egalitarianism from those who pursue the traditional middle-class pat-
terns concerning the gendered division of labour in the course of the transition to 
parenthood.

3 Data and methods

For the empirical study, we use data from a qualitative longitudinal study from the 
years 2006 and 2007 (Schulz et al. 2008).2 The aim of this study was to examine 
the division of labour in couples in the transition to their fi rst parenthood. For this 
purpose, 14 couples were theoretically sampled (Glaser/Strauss 1998). They had 
to be cohabitating, childless and in the fourth to eighth months pregnant with their 
fi rst child at the time of the fi rst interview. Among all of these couples both partners 
were gainfully employed and had almost equal, in most cases high levels of educa-
tional resources. A second interview was held approximately six to twelve months 
following the birth of the child. Both partners were interviewed separately. The fo-
cus of the interviews was on the partners’ distribution of employment, housework 
and childcare. All of these aspects were surveyed for the time of the interview as 
well as retro- and prospectively. The event-centred longitudinal design of the study 
allows examining the impact of the birth of the couple’s fi rst child on their division 
of labour.

The qualitative longitudinal design enables the comparison of the developments 
in the division of labour among couples with predominantly similar initial situations. 
According to the theoretical considerations in terms of the egalitarian values mod-
els it can be anticipated for people who are mostly educational homogamous on 
a high level that they practise an equal division of labour both prior to the birth of 
the child and continue to do so afterwards. Using the available data we can retrace 
the specifi c situations, expectations and rationales as well as the actual process of 
everyday routines among these specifi c couple constellations and determine the 
reasons for possible deviations from the model on the basis of concrete examples.

The interviews were analysed using a combination of approaches of qualitative 
content analysis as proposed by Mayring (2008), the construction of types accord-
ing to individual cases as proposed by Kelle and Kluge (2010) and the confrontation 

2 We thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Bayerische Staatsministerium für Ar-
beit und Sozialordnung, Familie und Frauen for fi nancially supporting the data collection proc-
ess as well as the analysis. The study is documented in detail in Schulz et al. (2008), in particular 
with regard to the sampling, the interview guidelines and socio-demographic information about 
those surveyed.



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz620

of theory-guided hypotheses with qualitative data as proposed by Hopf (1993). In 
the qualitative content analysis, the relevant contents for the division of the different 
tasks are worked out from the interviews in a rule-based process. The themes of 
the interview manual serve as deductive categories, which are supplemented with 
aspects inductively gained from the data. This method condenses the contents of 
the single interviews (Mayring 2008). It is done for both interview times. Based on 
this summarising content analysis, each couple is examined as an individual case in 
order to illuminate the division of labour before and after the birth of the fi rst child 
and ascertain and explain processes of change. In the next step, classifi catory real 
types are formed from these individual cases (Kelle/Kluge 2010). Signifi cant factors 
thereby are how the couples arrange their division of labour before and after the 
birth of their fi rst child and which changes occurred in the transition to parenthood. 
Then, from the different behavioural patterns of the division of labour in the tran-
sition to parenthood, couples are deliberately chosen to identify the factors that 
lead to the different developments in the division of paid and unpaid work in the 
transition to fi rst parenthood within the individual patterns. For the identifi cation, 
as recommended by Hopf (1993), we always kept in mind our working hypothesis 
that egalitarian divisions can be expected to a greater degree among those couples 
we examined with educational homogamy on a high level. This hypothesis refers to 
singular facts and can therefore also be confi rmed or rejected based on individual 
couples.

Educational constellations in the sample

Among 11 of the 14 interviewed couples, both partners have a similar educational 
degree; this is in ten cases a higher education entrance qualifi cation (or an advanced 
technical college entrance qualifi cation), in one case a secondary educational cer-
tifi cate. Among two couples, the woman has a higher level of education than her 
partner; the opposite is the case among one couple. In general, the respondents of 
the sample have an above-average high level of education, 23 of the 28 interview-
ees have a university-entrance diploma or technical diploma. Therefore this study 
is well suited for comparing and analysing the basic idea of the egalitarian values 
approach and the actual argumentation strategies of respondents with higher edu-
cational degrees, whether and to what extent these ideals are expressed and agree 
with the actual division of labour. We can also see whether the statements made 
and/or the actions change over the course of the birth.

Because we used a theoretical sampling, the couples are not a statistically rep-
resentative random sample. This is emphasized by the attribute distributions of the 
respondents (Schulz et al. 2008), which differ considerably from fi gures that are 
representative of the population (e.g. higher average age of the women at their fi rst 
child). However, it is not the aim of our study to provide quantitative certainties for 
the relations found, but instead to identify an empirical spectrum of possible sce-
narios for the division of labour in the transition to parenthood. In this respect we 
understand our interpretations in terms of “exemplary generalisations” (Wahl et al. 
1982: 206; translated by the authors).



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 621

4 Empirical fi ndings

In the description of the empirical fi ndings, we begin with the change of the division 
of labour in the transition to parenthood, then search for reasons for these proc-
esses and fi nally work out the conditions for egalitarian division of paid and unpaid 
work based on two exemplary cases.

Division of labour before and after the birth of the child

Table 1 shows that only 4 of the 25 possible combinations for the division of house-
work and employment are observable. Prior to the birth of the fi rst child, almost half 
of the couples divide up housework in approximately equal parts.3 In the other cas-
es, the women do the larger part of the housework than the men. The pattern with 
regard to employment reveals that among most of the couples both partners are 
employed to an approximately equal extent. In three cases, the man works longer 
hours than the woman, in one couple the opposite is the case.4

We label the couples who divide up both housework and employment equally 
(A, C, F, G, K, N) as egalitarian, the couples in which the women do a larger share 

3 In the following, housework is defi ned as all activities that arise in and around the home, in ad-
dition to cooking, cleaning, tidying up, shopping and similar, also such tasks as repairs, garden-
ing and manual work. This broad defi nition of housework enables a comprehensive look at the 
entire work of reproduction in the domestic sphere independent of the gender-specifi c division 
of certain activities into so-called “female” or “male” activities.

4 Since gainful employment of both partners was a sample criterion, the case is excluded that 
only one of the partners is employed.

Tab. 1: Division of housework and employment before the birth of the fi rst 
mutual child

  Division of housework 

  Man alone Man > Woman Man = Woman Man < Woman Woman alone 

Man alone      

Man > Woman    B, D, H  

Man = Woman   A, C, F, G, K, N I, J, L, M  

Man < Woman    E  D
iv

is
io

n
 o

f 
e
m

p
lo

y
m

e
n

t 

Woman alone      

Note: Categorization of the couples under the fi ve categories is based essentially on the 
respondents’ self-assessments, which were, however, validated using both partners’ eve-
ryday histories that were reported independently of this explicitly requested information.

Source: own design



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz622

of the housework and at the same time work the same (I, J, L, M) or lesser hours (B, 
D, H) than their partners are labelled as couples with partially specialised arrange-
ments. Couple E can also be counted among this group since the man spends a lot 
of time working towards his professional further qualifi cation, which in the narrower 
sense does not count as time for employment.

Table 2 shows how the couples divide up housework, employment and childcare 
following the transition to parenthood. Only two of the couples continue to share the 
housework in an equal manner (C, H). In all of the other cases, the women do most 
of or all of the housework. The distribution of employment has also changed: in 5 
of the 14 couples, both partners work roughly the same hours. In the same number 
of couples the women work considerably fewer hours than the men. In another four 
cases only the men are employed or the women only work marginal hours.

The birth of the fi rst mutual child adds childcare as a new set of responsibilities 
to the couples’ work duties. Only two of the couples share these duties equally; for 
the majority, childcare becomes the responsibility of the women. In our sample, at 
the time of the second interviews, none of the men takes on a greater share of the 
care of the child as their partners. Retrospectively, some couples report that the 
fathers took on a greater portion of childcare directly following the birth in order 
to relieve the women and allow them to recover from the delivery. However, this 
involvement was usually reduced by the men with the progressive convalescence 
of the women.

A more differentiated picture is seen following the transition to parenthood with 
regard to the combination of shares of housework, employment and childcare. Two 
couples divide up these spheres largely equally, whereby one of these couples 
practised a partially specialised arrangement prior to the birth. There are also cou-
ples with a partially specialised division of labour. Contrary to the situation before 

Tab. 2: Division of housework, employment and childcare six to twelve months 
following the birth of the fi rst mutual child

Note: See Tab. 1.

Source: own design

  Division of housework 

  Man = Woman Man < Woman Woman alone 

Division of childcare  

Man = Woman Man < Woman Woman alone Woman alone 

Man alone  D, L G N 

Man > Woman  A, E, F, K, M   

D
iv

is
io

n
 o

f 
e
m

p
lo

y
m

e
n

t 

Man = Woman C, H B, I  J 



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 623

the birth of the fi rst child, at the time of the second interview there are also couples 
who chose a highly specialised division of labour.

A descriptive look at the arrangements and the patterns (Fig. 1) illustrates that 
before the birth roughly half of the couples shared paid and unpaid work equally, 
however only one (couple C) was able to retain this arrangement beyond the birth 
of the child. Another couple (H) shares the tasks at the time of the second interview 
equally, while beforehand it had a partially specialised division of housework and 
employment. Among the other couples we observed a (further) polarisation of re-
sponsibilities according to the traditional family model according to which the man 
is increasingly employed and the woman does the domestic chores.

Family values, family norms and the actual division of labour prior to the 
birth of the fi rst child

According to the egalitarian values model, nearly all of the couples in our sample 
should prefer and practise an arrangement of dividing labour equally. In this section, 
we compile the ideas expressed and the actual practice of the couples, in order to 
see which family values and norms were explicitly or implicitly communicated by 
the respondents and whether these concur with their actions.

All in all, the interviews contain many indications of the values of the couples 
interviewed. Largely all of the respondents refer to the egalitarian model. Dividing 
earning and family work equally between the partners appears to be a central and 
largely understood reference value for the couples. In addition, the couples differ in 
whether they strive for the equality ideal with or without conditions, or exclude it en-
tirely for their actual situation and merely consider it a general frame of reference.

Prior to the birth, it was initially understood by all of the respondents that both 
partners have a paid work; this was not justifi ed or questioned in the interviews by 

Fig. 1: Patterns of the individual couples

Labour division before 
childbirth 

Labour division after 
childbirth 

   
Egalitarian Egalitarian 

(Partly) Specialised (Partly) Specialised 

Legend: 
Pattern of couple C 
Pattern of couples A, F, G, K and N 
Pattern of couples B, D, E, I, J, L and M 
Pattern of couple H 

Source: own design



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz624

any of the individuals.5 This indicates that for childless couples with a similarly high 
level of education there is something like a dual earners norm that overrides the 
traditionally polarised gender roles ideal.

We also encounter this unquestioned ideal of equality with regard to the divi-
sion of housework, in this case from the perspective of a man and practised by G 
and K: 

“Basically, it’s, it’s fi fty-fi fty ... Yet it just worked out that way” 
(Int_K2: 246, 258).6 

Other men argue, 
“Yeah, it was ... clear to me in the fi rst place that the household 
is not just ... women’s work ... that’s the way I was brought up, 
too, we always had to help out and that’s the way it is there, too” 
(Int_L2: 127). 

With a closer look at the arrangements practised by these couples, however, 
these expressed ideals prove to be more a case of “verbal open-mindedness,” since 
“together” does not necessarily mean “the same amount”. Only one of the men with 
this justifi cation pattern (couple F) shares the housework with his partner equally, 
while the others (couples E, L) do a lesser share of the work than their female part-
ners.

Men who detach themselves from the implicit egalitarian ideal and cite condi-
tions for an egalitarian division of housework, tend to act to a greater degree ac-
cording to their verbalised ideal. One example is the employment of both partners: 

“it’s clear from the start that..., if both go to work ... both also have 
to somehow do something” (Int_A2: 239). 

The majority of those men who made such statements also practise an egalitar-
ian arrangement in housework (couples A, C, N); only one of them does less than 
his partner (couple M). This can be interpreted in the sense of the bargaining theory 
(Ott 1992) but also available time (Coverman 1985) or the couple’s ideals of fairness 
(Deutsch 1975).

5 At both interview times, all of the couples we directly asked for the reasons for the described 
division of labour in the two/three spheres. The statements are an initial indication of the re-
sponse to the question of how the respective division came about. Since it is probable that the 
respondents are not aware of all of the reasons or they might not want to state some of them, 
throughout the entire interview additional or deviating explanations were sought.

6 The interview quotes are marked as follows: First it can be identifi ed whether it was the fi rst (Int) 
or the second interview (Int2), the ensuing letters indicate which couple it is with the respective 
identifying letters and which partner (1 for women and 2 for men) stated the quote. The para-
graph numbers of the location of the text are documented after the colon. The paragraphs were 
numbered in sequence from top to bottom. “I” indicates passages by the interviewer. Passages 
by the respondent begin with “R”. Omissions are noted with three dots. All quotes are trans-
lated from the German originals which can be found in the Appendix as well as in the German 
original article (doi: 10.4232/10.CPoS-2013-06de, urn: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2013-06de4).

(a)

(b)

(c)



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 625

We encounter this conditioned ideal in its most acute form in rather resource-
oriented rationales in Coverman’s sense (1985): 

“Just due to the fact that I work full-time and she works part-time 
she simply does ... the chores in the morning ... that come up and by 
the time I get home in the evening it’s done, and that’s why there’s 
rather little for me to do” (Int_J2: 210). 

This means whoever spends more time at their jobs has to spend less time do-
ing housework, and only when both partners work the same hours, the housework 
should also be shared equally. All of the men who follow this pattern of argumenta-
tion do less household chores than their partners (couples B, D, H, I, J), even if both 
of them are employed almost identical hours (couples I, J).

We also encounter the unconditioned and conditioned justifi cations in the wom-
en’s interviews, at fi rst using the example of implicitness (practised this way by 
couples A, C, F, H; traditional-specialised deviation with couple L): 

“I simply thought it was understood that if he’s there anyway – even 
if he’s not living here all the time – that he can do his part and that 
was also clear to him in the fi rst place, because he’s not the kind of 
guy who would sit back and let himself be taken care of ..., but that 
was also natural for him that he also ... would do household things” 
(Int_A1: 208).

However, the women more frequently express the conditioned ideal with regard 
to available time resources (cf. Coverman 1985): 

“We do it over the weekend, too, J. [husband] does things some-
times, but I don’t think it’s all so necessary if I have time to get it 
done” (Int_J1: 594). 

Most of the women who use this strategy of argumentation (couples B, D, E, H, I, 
J) do a greater share of the work than their partner. Couple E is particularly remark-
able in this respect, because although the woman works longer hours away from 
home she nonetheless spends more time doing housework in order to take the bur-
den off her partner’s shoulders since he is in further training. By contrast, couple K 
equally divides up the housework using these justifi cation patterns.

One woman reports that the egalitarian division developed without any closer 
scrutiny:

“I: How did you share the work as fi rst? Did you ever talk about 
it? …
R: Actually, it usually just happened” (Int_N1: 223-229).

In only one case a woman, but none of the men, referred to the traditional image 
of the family (couple M), this couple is indeed best characterised by a traditional 
division of labour:

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz626

“R: There was never any question about it. ... It was always un-
derstood that this [the housework] would be my responsibility.” 
(Int_M1: 337-340).

This unquestioned adoption of the traditional woman’s role fi ts into the logic of 
the egalitarian values model, since couple M have less high educational levels. In 
this constellation the model does not assume an egalitarian, but a (partially) special-
ised division of labour.

Overall, with regard to the reasons given for the present division of labour there 
are a number of references to family values, principles and norms, which are also 
largely shared and cited by the partners in great agreement. For most of the re-
spondents it is understood that employment and housework are shared by the cou-
ple. However, in practice this does not necessarily mean that they distribute the 
amount of work equally, even if the conditions cited for this, such as the repeatedly 
mentioned similar amount of paid working hours, are fulfi lled. Hence, we already 
encounter indications that “verbal open-mindedness” and a high level of education 
of both partners are not suffi cient to practise an egalitarian division of labour. In 
fact, it appears that additional factors play a role for this. Apart from egalitarian at-
titudes, frequent discussions about them are needed to ensure that patterns contra-
dicting the expressed ideals do not inadvertently develop, as is reported by couple 
N. Additionally, different degrees of strain in gainful employment also appear to be 
balanced out in the domestic sphere, which leads to fairness in the total working 
time in the perception of the couples in the sense of the equity approach (cf. e.g. 
Deutsch 1975).

Family values, family norms and the actual division of labour following the 
birth of the fi rst child

Which developments in the division of paid and unpaid work do the couples expect 
in the course of the transition to parenthood? Which changes to the current mutual 
responsibility for the spheres of employment and housework do the partners antici-
pate and how do they justify them? Which family values and norms are refl ected in 
the expectations and realisations?

The anticipations for the fi rst year following the birth of the child can be divided 
into four groups. We do not need to differentiate the expectations according to the 
respondent’s sex, because in all of the couples both partners expressed very similar 
ideals.7 First, they expect a polar sharing of tasks following the birth of the child, 
whereby the man is largely responsible for earnings and the woman for housework 

7 There are minor differences for example in couple J. The woman plans to return to work fol-
lowing the obligatory maternal leave, while the husband thinks she may take 6 months paternal 
leave. Since however over the short-term planning horizon of one year both have the same 
expectation, it is not necessary to differentiate between the statements of both respondents. 
Similarly minor deviations occur among other couples as well. However, both partners in all 
couples roughly refer to the same anticipations.

(h)



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 627

and childcare (couples A, D, G, M, N). Most of the couples describe their decision-
making process as a mutual deliberation that the woman initially wants to be there 
for the baby and therefore is interrupting her employment. As a consequence of 
the interruption, she will have more time at home and, due to this time and spatial 
proximity, can take over the housework. The women themselves make this argu-
ment, even if prior to the birth of the child they by no means accepted doing more 
housework than their partner based on conventional gender roles:

“so now in the future ... I’m at home and have the child, then it’s 
understood that I will do most of the housework, simply because 
I’m at home, but if I’m also working, then I don’t see why I should 
also do the household just because I’m a woman, not at all and he 
accepts it that way, too, ... that’s actually totally obvious to both of 
us.” (Int_A1: 54-55).

Some of the women wish to take parental leave on their own, exclude their part-
ners from it, and do not want to relinquish this time at home with the baby. They 
very distinctly express the attitude that caring for the child is the woman’s job:

“I: Did you ever consider deciding whether the man might take part 
of the parental leave?
R: Yes. ... for me that was not really an issue, because I like staying 
at home, ... but I think he ... wouldn’t have had any qualms about be-
ing the house husband and staying at home, but just ... with regard 
to breastfeeding, there’s no other way and I would not have allowed 
anybody to take that away from me to be quite honest.” (Int_A1: 
527-531).

The explicitness with which the traditionally middle-class family values are ex-
plained in the anticipations is not least surprising since, with only one exception, 
they did not play any role whatsoever in the justifi cation for the division of employ-
ment and housework at the time of the fi rst interview. Apparently the actors’ values 
are infl uenced to such a degree by the specifi c situation of the transition to parent-
hood that previously unacceptable traditional patterns of organising everyday rou-
tines and cultural principles are considered feasible and desirable, even if they were 
clearly and distinctly rejected in the past. Many couples justify this change by re-
ferring to the biological rationale of breastfeeding. Nonetheless, it remains unclear 
whether such traditional arrangements can persist on a continuing basis. 

Couples B, F, I, J, K and L make up the second group of anticipations. They antici-
pate a partially polar division, in which after a certain transitional period (which var-
ies between the duration of maternity leave and a few months) with only the male 
being employed, both will again be employed, but the man to a greater extent. The 
woman will, however, spend more time on housework and childcare. As expressed 
in the quote above (Int_A1), the deviation from the previous ideal of equality is fre-
quently justifi ed using biological reasons.

Only couple E expresses the third type of expectations for their future division of 
labour. They assume that they will not achieve their ideal of an egalitarian division 

(i)

(j)



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz628

of labour and will instead live in a polar arrangement, in which the woman will work 
full time while the man will have irregular jobs and take over the larger share of the 
housework and childcare. The reason cited for this is that the man does not have a 
job for the time following the birth and is searching for employment, which makes 
the future diffi cult to plan.

We call the fourth type of anticipations egalitarian since these couples expect 
that both of them, after a brief initial period, will do about 50 percent of the work 
in all three spheres (couples C, H). Rejection of the traditional, middle-class pattern 
is, as van Berkel and de Graaf (1999) assume, important for the couples. As we 
describe further below in the specifi c case studies, here egalitarian values and at-
titudes encounter visions of how conditions can be used and created to also imple-
ment these ideals.

The comparison of anticipations with realisations (cf. Tab. 2) shows that for most 
couples wishes and reality coincide. Couples B, E and L were not able to implement 
their planned division of labour. In retrospect, this is accounted for in that the em-
ployment situation could not be realised as planned: the woman from couple B has 
a larger extent of employment due to a better business situation than expected, but 
is also dissatisfi ed that the child is cared for by an external caregiver to a greater ex-
tent than she wanted. Couple E experienced an entirely new situation, since prior to 
the birth the man had temporary employment contracts limited to a very short pe-
riod of time and shortly following the birth was offered a permanent full-time posi-
tion. He took advantage of this opportunity, whereby the woman decided to reduce 
her employment hours to care for the child, although this quite clearly contradicted 
the egalitarian values expressed by both in all three spheres. The self-employed, 
hourly work that the woman from couple L had planned prior to the birth was not 
realised; neither she nor her man refer to this however in the second wave.

The following explanatory patterns emerge in a comparison of the rationales for 
the chosen arrangements at the time of the second interview. In addition to norma-
tive arguments, situational rationales are also cited here.

Couples A, G and N explain their current arrangement at the second interview 
by the fact that the woman wished to care for the child and therefore interrupted 
her employment. Therefore, these women take up a far larger share of the childcare 
than their full-time employed partners. Both of the partners in these three couples 
derive from the fact that the woman spends more time at home that she must do 
most of the housework according to the middle-class traditional ideal. In addition, 
mainly the women argue according to Coverman (1985) and Deutsch (1975) that 
the family can spend quality time together when the man arrives home from work 
and he then does not have to do housework. Couple G hires a cleaner, so that this 
woman does less household tasks herself than the two others. 

Among other couples, it is absolutely no question that both partners are and 
want to be employed. This corresponds to the logic of Ott (1992), whereby the own 
employment is considered something desirable. The women in couples B, E, F, I, K 
and M are, however, employed fewer hours than their partners. One of them (cou-
ple E) reduced her hours to allow her man to take on a full-time job. In this case, at 
least temporarily, his employment is given priority, which contradicts the ideal ex-



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 629

pressed repeatedly by both of equally sharing all three spheres. This is justifi ed with 
the specifi c situation that the man has a choice between full-time employment and 
unemployment. In this group, all of the women do more housework because they 
spend more time at home than the men and thus go along with the expectation of 
the man as well as the woman herself of doing a greater share of the routine chores 
(conditioned equality ideal). Nonetheless, all of the couples continue to expect that 
the man also takes on a certain share of the housework. Hence, the antenatal ideal 
of sharing the household work is not entirely abandoned, but adjusted to the situa-
tion. Some of the couples receive support from external service providers (couples 
B, I). In all of the cases the women do a greater share of the childcare, some of them 
can work from home and care for the child at the same time (couples B, I). All of the 
couples however procure support with childcare, whether from their own parents, 
day nurseries, babysitters or childminders.

One pattern of explaining the woman’s (at least temporarily) dropping out of 
employment is the salary difference of the two partners and the couple’s assess-
ment that the man would probably lose social status at the workplace if he were to 
take parental leave. These are therefore economical (e.g. as defi ned by Becker 1998) 
as well as normative arguments, which can be associated with the rationale of the 
doing gender approach (cf. e.g. West/Zimmerman 1987). As with the above explana-
tory patterns, couples D, J and L also justify the responsibility of the woman for the 
major share of the housework. While the woman in couple D works very few hours, 
the woman from couple J works a little more than part-time and the one from couple 
L is not employed. The two former organise childcare during their working hours 
differently. In one case the child is cared for by the partner (couple D), while in the 
other case it is possible and practised to take the child along to work (couple J).

In order to better understand the constellations of conditions and attitudes of 
the two couples who practise an egalitarian division of labour following the birth 
(couples C, H) and therefore correspond to the expectation of the egalitarian values 
approach, in the following we illuminate them in greater detail and sketch the dif-
ferences between them and the couples who exhibit the pattern of a specialised 
division of paid and unpaid work.

Case analysis of couple C

Couple C differs from most of the other couples in that both partners are divorced, 
but both were still married at the time that they fi rst met. The man must pay sup-
port to his ex-wife and the three children from their marriage. Both partners are 
university graduates in the fi eld of business/engineering and work in the sales force 
or from home for the same company. For both, many overtime hours are part of 
their working routine. Both partners do housework, whereby the couple employs 
a cleaner who wipes and vacuums, cleans the bathroom and irons. The man took 
up the initiative for this. The couple either does the other household tasks, such as 
cooking, together or divides them up, for example grocery shopping. Each partner 
does about 50 percent of the household tasks that are not done by their external 
helper.



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz630

Both partners consider it natural to share the housework. For the man, the 
employment of both partners is the decisive condition for his participation in the 
household:

“Well, if my partner were at home all day, it would surely be expect-
ed that she simply does certain things. When you get home in the 
evening, it’s clear that certain things are already done. You’d prob-
ably be dissatisfi ed if they weren’t. Since both of us are out all day, 
we’re certainly also dissatisfi ed about certain things. ... But that’s 
why you have to divide up the things equally and you don’t have any 
right or reason to be dissatisfi ed if there’s no food on the table in 
the evening. ... The only way to fi nd a solution to that is to call fi rst 
and ask ‘What’s for dinner? Did you make any plans yet?,’ to make 
something yourself or to go out to eat.” (Int_C2: 123).

This implicitness in the division of labour probably also leads to the couple only 
speaking very little about how the division actually came about and that they say the 
situation arose without question. They also do not express any opinions or attitudes 
about the division of labour in general or about gender roles, but the interviews 
implicitly contain them. The implicitness of the egalitarian division in particular in-
dicates a greatly internalised ideal of equality as defi ned by the egalitarian values 
approach.

In light of the man’s conditioned expectation of dividing housework equally, 
it can be assumed that he anticipates an unequal distribution for the time about 
the birth. This is as the woman will be out of the labour market since she plans to 
take parental leave after her maternal leave and to interrupt her employment for 
six months. However when asked about his expectations for the future, the man 
responds that nothing will change since the woman will probably be caring for the 
child a great deal. In this, his assessment differs from that of most of the other cou-
ples, who specifi cally state that since the woman will spend so much time within the 
household to care for the child, she will also do more housework.

“I: What do you expect then for the division of housework ..., once 
the baby ... has arrived? Do you anticipate ... shifts when the woman 
... is home the fi rst six months? ...
R: I don’t think that anything will change. A. [name of partner] has to 
get used to the baby and to handling the baby fi rst and will probably 
simply spend a lot of time caring for it.” (Int_C2: 284-286).

It is very important for the woman to re-enter her job soon. On the one hand that 
is the only way she can continue to keep her present position and on the other hand 
she enjoys it and wants to avoid the role her mother took on, who stayed home at 
the request of her father. In this regard, her man’s support obligations are a wel-
come rationale for substantiating her ideal of an egalitarian division of labour:

“What’s important to me is that I am free to continue to work. S. 
[name of the partner] has the charming advantage that he ... is li-
able for support and so he can’t even think up the silly idea of saying 

(l)

(m)

(k)



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 631

‘Honey, I have a great idea. You stay at home and I will afford it for 
you.’ ... This saves me from that role like my mother has. As soon 
as I started school, my mother had to stay at home. This was really 
important to my father, too. When I told him we were expecting a 
baby, he simply assumed that I would stay at home in the future. ... 
‘Where’d you get that idea? You really want to work.’ Yes. And then 
he blames it on S. Oh, yeah, S. can’t do that. As if that was a nega-
tive thing. What’s a benefi t for me. Well, it’s very important to me.” 
(Int_C1: 364).

Figure 2 shows how the couple’s division of labour changed over time. Before 
the pregnancy, the couple divided up the paid and unpaid work equally, as they did 
again at the time of the second interview. Shortly before and after the birth the man 
is temporarily the sole earner. The woman gradually re-enters her job and fi nally is 
working full time again. This is possible because a childminder cares for the child. 
Directly following the birth, the man did far more housework and a major share of 

Fig. 2: Man’s share of the work in couple C in the spheres of housework, 
employment and childcare over the course of time

0

50

100

ea
rli

er

m
at

er
ni

ty
le

av
e

bi
rth

en
d

of
m

at
er

ni
ty

le
av

e

se
co

nd
in

te
rv

ie
w

household chores paid work childcare

in percent

Note: The Y-axis shows the man’s percentage in the work spheres of housework, em-
ployment and childcare. The time axis is subdivided by events that are relevant for the 
couple.

Source: own design



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz632

the childcare in order to relieve the woman. Once she recovered from the delivery, 
the shares of both in housework and childcare levelled off at 50 percent, which is 
considered the normal level by the woman regardless of the fact that she did not 
work for a time or worked fewer hours than her partner:

“Well, let’s say that when the baby was born of course he did more 
than I did. ... But simply due to the fact ... for a whole week I could 
hardly walk and after that only a little. ... But after that actually every-
thing balanced back out to the normal level.” (Int2_C1: 1892-1896).

In summary, both partners are convinced that housework should be done jointly. 
For the woman, the egalitarian division of labour is the normality, anything else is a 
deviation from this and caused by specifi c situations. For the man it is understood 
that he will share domestic chores with his partner after the birth in the same way 
as before the birth. Couple C thus is exemplary for the egalitarian values model, 
which assumes that couples with similarly high levels of education have egalitarian 
attitudes and attempt to implement these attitudes in everyday routines. However, 
the couple’s outsourcing is the suffi cient condition for the equal division of chores. 
A major share of the work is outsourced to the cleaner and childminder so that the 
couple is able to divide up the remaining chores in an egalitarian manner. In the 
sphere of housework especially the unpopular chores and those that the man is un-
able (or unwilling, such as ironing) to do are outsourced. Another important condi-
tion for the egalitarian division of paid and unpaid work is the fact that both consider 
full-time employment normal. They are each able to work a number of days of the 
week from home and thereby can and want to care for the child at the same time. 
With regard to the childcare, it should be noted that the man also very actively de-
mands that he can spend time with the child and sees himself as just as competent 
as his partner in all matters and strives to prove this by his behaviour.

Case analysis of couple H

The respondents are both academics; the woman majored in the social sciences, 
the man in the business-technical fi elds. At the time of the fi rst interview, the woman 
works part-time and the man has a full-time position. Earlier both worked full-time, 
until the woman reduced her hours for health reasons. Both partners do housework. 
Many activities are assigned to one person in a relatively fi xed way. The woman 
cooks, prepares the breakfast and irons, does the grocery shopping and administra-
tive formalities. The man is responsible for dusting, making beds, purchasing bever-
ages, carrying out the rubbish, repairing the car, fi ling the tax returns and washing 
the windows. Some activities are done by both, such as washing the dishes, fi lling 
and emptying the dishwasher, cleaning the bathroom, mopping and gardening. The 
woman tends to spend more time on housework, which both account for by the fact 
that she has fewer working hours and is at home longer hours than the man. Hence, 
when both were full-time employees the housework was shared equally, and the 
woman explains her greater share of housework with her fewer working hours, 

(n)



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 633

“because we both have the attitude that it’s simply divided up and 
I simply happen to do a little more because I only work half days” 
(Int_H1: 158). 

Although the woman attempts to fi nish many household tasks during the week 
so that the couple can spend a relaxed weekend together, it is clear that both part-
ners must participate in the housework. The actual division of chores evolved pri-
marily from preferences and skills.

For the time following the birth of the child, the couple intends for the woman to 
return to her job after the maternity leave. At the same time, the man will reduce his 
working hours to about 40 percent since he 

“on his own ... had the ... desire, if a child then he wants to take care 
of it, too. ... yes, for him it was always that ... he actually wanted to 
do it from his own accord and ... based on our understanding of our 
roles in the relationship ... we have … an emancipated perception” 
(Int_H1: 426).

Hence, following the birth the couple intends to equally divide up the labour 
amongst themselves. None of the other interviewed men express the willingness to 
reduce their working hours.

Figure 3 illustrates that the couple was able to implement these ideas in their 
everyday lives. Directly following the birth of the child, the man took on a large part 
of the childcare and considerably more housework. At that time only he was em-
ployed. When his wife’s health improved, she increased her share of the housework. 
On her labour market re-entry, an arrangement solidifi ed in which both do approxi-
mately 50 percent of all spheres of paid and unpaid labour.

Compared to earlier, the couple is attempting to outsource some household 
tasks since the birth of the child. The ironing is handed over to the woman’s parents, 
a gardener does the gardening. Between the two interviews the couple has had a 
cleaner for a while, 

“who now sadly – sadly for us – quit” (Int2_H2:286). 

Both stress that they hope to get some relief from housework again. This is a 
change compared to the time of the fi rst interview when the woman could not im-
agine this kind of outsourcing. It continues to be a matter of course for the couple 
to share the housework; the grown structures are not questioned. Sometimes they 
agree on who will do what work, whereby it is usually a question of who will take 
care of the child and who will do housework:

“But it’s often like, let’s say, the washing machine needs to be emp-
tied or the dishwasher, do you want to do it or do you want to watch 
the baby? He always rather says he wants to watch the baby.” (Int2_
H1: 788).

It is of prime importance for the couple’s division of labour that both of them can 
care for the child and are employed: 

(p)

(q)

(r)

(o)



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz634

“for us it was always the optimal arrangement: Both work and both 
take care of the baby” (Int2_H1: 388). 

This is also the ideal situation for the man. It may be that this assessment was 
infl uenced by the fact that the woman may not have wanted to have a baby if the 
man had not reduced his working hours:

“I have to say, though, if my husband had said he didn’t want that.... 
I don’t know if I would have wanted to have a baby, the idea of 
spending the whole week at home with the baby and nothing else ... 
would have been, I think, not really my thing.” (Int2_H1: 261).

Although couple H explicitly expresses the preference that the arising work 
should be equally allocated to the partners, an egalitarian division of housework 
is not essential for every situation. Particularly in the time following the birth the 
approximately equal distribution of the household tasks arose from the desire of 
both that the father also participates in childcare and that the woman not only cares 
for the child, but that both are employed part time in order to attain these objec-
tives. Hence, the egalitarian division of housework appears more like a by-product 

(t)

Fig. 3: Man’s share of the work in couple H in the spheres of housework, 
employment and childcare over the course of time

0

50

100

ea
rli

er

m
at

er
ni

ty
le

av
e

bi
rth

en
d

of
m

at
er

ni
ty

le
av

e

se
co

nd
in

te
rv

ie
w

household chores paid work childcare

in percent

Note: See fi gure 2.

Source: own design

(s)



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 635

of the egalitarian division of the other two spheres although both partners are highly 
sensitised to this subject and explicitly wish for the equal distribution of work, es-
pecially in the sphere of childcare (this was expressed otherwise only by couples 
C and E). In order to keep the amount of housework as low as possible, the couple 
procures external help and aims to expand that in the future.

Conditions enabling an equal division of paid and unpaid work

In most of the interviewed couples and thus even among highly educated and ho-
mogamous couples, we fi nd a specialised division of labour in which the man does 
a greater share of paid work and the woman is primarily responsible for housework 
and childcare in the fi rst year following the birth. This pattern is not in accordance 
with the egalitarian values model, as it assumes that couples in which both partners 
have a high level of education tend to exhibit more democratic attitudes and thus 
strive for an egalitarian division of labour in all spheres and wish to continue to do 
so beyond the birth of the fi rst child.

Therefore, the question arises how the couples that share paid and unpaid work 
equally after the transition to parenthood differ from those couples that pursue a 
rather specialised arrangement. As described above, the egalitarian division of all 
three spheres of labour after the transition to parenthood is only observed in cou-
ples C and H.

At fi rst, it is conspicuous that couple H did only practise an egalitarian division 
of labour at the time of the second interview and prior to the birth had an arrange-
ment in which the man had more working hours and participated less in the house-
work. The different time spent for employment was given as the explanation for the 
partially specialised arrangement, which both partners actually rather disapprove. 
That is why this couple very frequently discussed its ideas about how to organise 
everyday life in the transition to parenthood. The man argued that he would like to 
take up his fair share of the childcare and thus would reduce his working hours. This 
matched the attitude of the woman who wholeheartedly rejects a traditionally spe-
cialised division of paid and unpaid work and was unsure whether she would have 
wanted to have a child without her man’s willingness to be involved in childcare 
(this can be understood as a negotiation over the division of labour). The egalitarian 
arrangement following the birth consequently was the result of strong ideals and 
values of gender equality, reminding of van Berkel and de Graaf’s (1999) model. This 
is coupled with the man’s opportunity to reduce his working hours, which is easily 
possible at his workplace and is further supported by his low career ambition. In or-
der to realise the ideals, the couple additionally takes advantage of many options for 
outsourcing household tasks. This is consistent with the desire to spend as much 
time as possible with the child and to organise the other spheres in a way enabling 
this. Couple H thus pursues a combination of the management strategies described 
by Rüling (2007) to circumvent “the traps of traditionalisation”.

By contrast, couple C divides the spheres of housework and employment equally 
both before and after the birth of the child. For both partners it is clear to share the 



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz636

housework equally if both are working the same hours. Full-time employment is not 
questioned by either of them, for it is an important factor of their self-concept. The 
amount of domestic work that needs to be done by the couple is minimised as much 
as possible: the couple has a cleaner and often eats out. Since her own employment 
is very important to the woman and she can only keep her position if she returns to 
work quickly and the man is obliged to support his children from his fi rst marriage, 
the couple decides that after a brief interruption the woman will pursue her job full 
time again. She re-enters in two stages. While she is at home the man does at least 
50 percent of the housework and childcare. Following van Berkel and de Graaf’s 
(1999) idea, it is a matter of course for him to continue to do household work to the 
same extent. He also wants to care for his child and tells his partner so. Even after 
the birth the couple pursues a strategy of extensively outsourcing. In addition to 
housework, this also applies to childcare. The couple has a childminder who takes 
care of the child three days of the week, while they take care of the child on the other 
days. It is crucial for this possibility that both respondents can work from home 
two days of the week and can allocate their time freely. In addition to egalitarian 
values regarding the division of labour, this couple also exhibits a strong orientation 
towards employment. Unlike couple H both are working full-time six months after 
the birth and structure their everyday life using every possibility to outsource tasks 
so that employment, housework and childcare can be divided up equally between 
both respondents.

5 Conclusions

Our study contributes to understanding the division of paid and unpaid work in cou-
ple’s households in the transition to parenthood. Based on qualitative longitudinal 
data, we analysed fi rst which arrangements couples practise before and after the 
birth of their fi rst child and second how these patterns can be evaluated against 
the background of the societal rhetoric of gender equality as well as the couples’ 
attitudes, principles and rationales. We considered all three spheres, employment, 
housework and childcare, jointly. We did not presume specifi c causalities a priori 
(which would be refl ected in the quantitative case in the defi nition of dependent and 
independent variables), but reconstructed the conditions for an egalitarian arrange-
ment from the couples’ perspectives. This made it possible to separate necessary 
and suffi cient conditions for an equal division of paid and unpaid work.

The analyses showed that the studied couples with educational homogamy on 
a high level express egalitarian values, such as those supposed by the egalitarian 
values model. Nonetheless not all of the couples are able to implement these at-
titudes in their real division of paid and unpaid work and retain it beyond the transi-
tion to fi rst parenthood. Hence, it seems that even if egalitarian values are prevalent, 
special concomitant circumstances are necessary to transfer the convictions into 
action, such as the possibility of reducing the working hours or to do a large part of 
the paid work from home. As the example of couple E shows, the lacking option to 
reduce the working hours can render an egalitarian division impossible if the part-



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 637

ners wish to care on their own for the child as much as possible. If the willingness is 
given to use external caregivers for a baby under the age of one year, a reduction of 
employment hours seems not to be a necessary condition, as the example of couple 
C shows. Hence, outsourcing work is one determining factor infl uencing the egali-
tarian division of housework and childcare in a positive manner. It requires, in turn, 
a suffi ciently high income as well as specifi c attitudes, values and principles, such 
as a low career ambition of the man (e.g. couple H), the man’s strong desire to care 
for the child equally (e.g. couples C, H) or a fundamental awareness of the issue and 
frequent discussion about the division of labour (e.g. couples C, H).8

All in all, our study illustrates that the division of labour in intimate relationships 
must be studied with far more differentiation than is often the case. In particular, 
it is very important to review different spheres of labour together. It must be taken 
into consideration that the division of labour in the different spheres follows differ-
ent rationales: the division of childcare is often decided upon the basis of prefer-
ences or gender-specifi c identities; especially in the initial period following the birth 
breastfeeding is also an important criterion; many women report a certain social 
pressure in this respect (cf. e.g. Ehnis 2008 on the importance of breastfeeding). 
Decisions about the employment situation are based on the one hand on the de-
cision about childcare and on the other hand on the fact that a certain amount of 
material prosperity should be attained. Sometimes, the gender-specifi c perceptions 
and assumptions of sanctions for an interruption or reduction of employment are 
important for the decisions; this is in particular the case as employment is a crucial 
component of the male gender role (cf. Baur/Luedtke 2008). By contrast, hardly any 
of the couples appears to make decisions about housework explicitly and prospec-
tively, and this precisely appears to reduce the chances for an egalitarian division of 
labour. In many cases, well-known behavioural patterns are fi rst adopted to such an 
extent that the women take up an increasingly greater share of the chores. From the 
couples’ points of view, these inequalities are quite reasonable during the studied 
phase (cf. Kaufmann 2005), as they are meaningful and relieve the couples from 
further negotiations. Meanwhile, it seems that hardly any of the actors is aware that 
in doing so social structures that regulate the everyday routines are concurrently 
reproduced in the form of (mostly irreversible) institutions (cf. Schulz 2010). Hence, 
learning more about the processes of rationalisation and life planning of couples in 
the transition to parenthood is a way to unravel the phenomenon of the “traditional 
division of labour” which – although rejected verbally by most people – is nonethe-
less still practised in line with existing societal structures. It seems that an egalitar-
ian division of paid and unpaid work is hardly realisable unless the mechanisms of 
traditionalisation in couples are uncovered and discussed in detail and construc-
tively, both in the fi eld of (social) sciences and in couples’ everyday lives.

8 In the scope of this study, it is not possible to check whether the conditions cited by the couples 
who exhibit a (partially) specialised division of labour following the birth were not producible or 
not desired. This was the result of a review of the interview material.



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz638

References

Baur, Nina; Luedtke, Jens 2008: Männlichkeit und Erwerbsarbeit bei westdeutschen 
Männern. In: Baur, Nina; Luedtke, Jens (Hrsg.): Die soziale Konstruktion von Männ-
lichkeit. Hegemoniale und marginalisierte Männlichkeiten in Deutschland. Opladen: 
Budrich: 81-103.

Baxter, Janeen; Hewitt, Belinda; Haynes, Michele 2008: Life course transitions and 
housework: Marriage, parenthood, and time on housework. In: Journal of Marriage 
and Family 70,2: 259-272 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00479.x].

Beck, Ulrich; Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth 1995: The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge: 
Polity Press.

Becker, Gary S. 1998: A Treatise on the Family. 4th edition. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.

Blau, Peter M. 1964: Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

Bonke, Jens; Esping-Andersen, Gøsta 2011: Family investments in children. Produc-
tivities, preferences, and parental child care. In: European Sociological Review 27,1: 
43-55 [doi: 10.1093/esr/jcp054].

Buchebner-Ferstl, Sabine; Rille-Pfeiffer, Christiane 2008: Hausarbeit in Partnerschaften. 
Studie „The glass partitioning wall“ zur innerfamilialen Arbeitsteilung – Ergebnisse für 
Österreich. ÖIF-Working Paper 69. Wien [URL: http://www.oif.ac.at/fi leadmin/OEIF/
workingaper/wp_69_hausarbeit.pdf, 12.03.2012].

Coverman, Shelley 1985: Explaining husband’s participation in domestic labor. In: Soci-
ology Quarterly 26,1: 81-97 [doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1985.tb00217.x].

Deutsch, Morton 1975: Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be 
used as the basis of distributive justice? In: Journal of Social Issues 31,3: 137-149 [doi: 
10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x].

Ehnis, Patrick 2008: Hegemoniale Mütterlichkeit. Vom selbstverständlichen Einverständ-
nis in die gesellschaftstypische Arbeitsteilung nach der Geburt eines Kindes. In: Mar-
burger Gender-Kolleg (Hrsg.): Geschlecht Macht Arbeit. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven 
und politische Intervention. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot: 56-69.

Glaser, Barney G.; Strauss, Anselm L. 1998: Grounded Theory. Strategien qualitativer 
Forschung. Bern: Huber.

Greenstein, Theodore N. 1996: Husbands’ participation in domestic labor. Interactive 
effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 
58,3: 585-595 [URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353719, 12.03.2012].

Hopf, Christel 1993: Fragen der Hypothesenbildung und Hypothesenprüfung. In: Hopf, 
Christel; Schmidt, Christiane (Hrsg.): Zum Verhältnis von innerfamilialen sozialen Er-
fahrungen, Persönlichkeitsentwicklung und politischen Orientierungen. Dokumen-
tation und Erörterung des methodischen Vorgehens in einer Studie zu diesem The-
ma. Hildesheim: 13-17 [URL: http://w2.wa.uni-hannover.de/mes/berichte/rex93.htm, 
12.03.2012].

Huinink, Johannes; Röhler, Heiko K. A. 2005: Liebe und Arbeit in Paarbeziehungen. Zur 
Erklärung geschlechtstypischer Arbeitsteilung in nichtehelichen und ehelichen Le-
bensgemeinschaften. Würzburg: Ergon.

Institut für Demoskopie 2005: Einstellungen junger Männer zu Elternzeit, Elterngeld und 
Familienfreundlichkeit im Betrieb. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsum-
frage. Allensbach [URL: http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/frauenvertreterin/download/
allensbach-vaeter.pdf, 16.08.2011].



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 639

Kaufmann, Jean-Claude 2005: Schmutzige Wäsche. Ein ungewöhnlicher Blick auf ge-
wöhnliche Paarbeziehungen. 2nd edition. Konstanz: UVK.

Kelle, Udo; Kluge, Susann 2010: Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkon-
trastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. 2nd edition. Wiesbaden: VS.

Kühhirt, Michael 2012: Childbirth and the long-term division of labour within couples: 
How do substitution, bargaining power, and norms affect parents’ time allocation in 
West Germany? In: European Sociological Review 28,5; 565-582 [doi: 10.1093/esr/
jcr026].

Künzler, Jan; Walter, Wolfgang 2001: Arbeitsteilung in Partnerschaften. Theoretische 
Ansätze und empirische Befunde. In: Huinink, Johannes; Strohmeier, Klaus Peter; 
Wagner, Michael (Hrsg.): Solidarität in Partnerschaft und Familie. Zum Stand famili-
ensoziologischer Theoriebildung. Würzburg: Ergon: 185-218.

Lück, Detlev 2009: Der zögernde Abschied vom Patriarchat. Der Wandel von Geschlech-
terrollen im internationalen Vergleich. Berlin: edition sigma.

Mayring, Philipp 2008: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 10th editi-
on. Weinheim: Beltz.

Ott, Notburga 1992: Intrafamily Bargaining and Household Decisions. Berlin: Springer.

Röhler, Heiko K. A.; Huinink, Johannes 2010: Pair relationships and housework. In: Treas, 
Judith; Drobnic, Sonja (Hrsg.): Dividing the Domestic. Men, Women, and Household 
Work in Cross-National Perspective. Stanford: University Press: 192-213.

Rüling, Anneli 2007: Jenseits der Traditionalisierungsfallen. Wie Eltern sich Familien- 
und Erwerbsarbeit teilen. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.

Schober, Pia S. 2013: The parenthood effect on gender inequality: Explaining the change 
in paid and domestic work when British couples become parents. In: European Socio-
logical Review 29,1: 47-85 [doi: 10.1093/esr/jcr041].

Schulte, Jürgen 2002: Dual-career couples. Strukturuntersuchung einer Partnerschafts-
form im Spiegelbild berufl icher Anforderungen. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.

Schulz, Florian 2010: Verbundene Lebensläufe. Partnerwahl und Arbeitsteilung zwi-
schen neuen Ressourcenverhältnissen und traditionellen Geschlechterrollen. Wies-
baden: VS.

Schulz, Florian; Jabsen, Annika; Rost, Harald 2008: Zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit 
– Der Alltag erwerbsorientierter Paare beim Übergang zur Elternschaft. Methoden-
bericht einer qualitativen Längsschnittstudie. ifb-Materialien 4/2008. Bamberg [URN: 
urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-125388].

Statistisches Bundesamt 2010: Öffentliche Sozialleistungen. Statistik zum Elterngeld. 
Gemeldete beendete Leistungsbezüge 2009. Wiesbaden.

van Berkel, Michel; de Graaf, Nan Dirk 1999: By virtue of pleasantness? Housework 
and the effects of education revisited. In: Sociology 33,4: 785-808 [doi: 10.1177/
S0038038599000498].

Wahl, Klaus; Honig, Michael S.; Gravenhorst, Lerke 1982: Wissenschaftlichkeit und In-
teressen. Zur Herstellung subjektivitätsorientierter Sozialforschung. Frankfurt/Main: 
Suhrkamp.

Wengler, Annelene; Trappe, Heike; Schmitt, Christian 2009: Alles wie gehabt? Zur Auf-
teilung von Hausarbeit und Elternaufgaben in Partnerschaften. In: Zeitschrift für Be-
völkerungswissenschaft 34,1-2: 57-78 [doi: 10.1007/s12523-010-0033-2].



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz640

Wiesmann, Stephanie 2010: 24/7 Negotiation in Couples’ Transition to Parenthood. ICS 
Dissertation Series, Issue 167. Universiteit Utrecht [URL: http://igitur-archive.library.
uu.nl/disse rtations/2010-0909-200252/UUindex.html, 12.03.2012].

West, Candace; Zimmerman, Don 1987: Doing gender. In: Gender and Society 1,2: 
125-151 [doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002].

Translated from the original text by the Federal Institute for Population Research, for information 
only. The reviewed and authors’ authorised original article in German is available under the title 
“Bedingungsszenarien einer partnerschaftlichen Arbeitsteilung beim Übergang zur Elternschaft in 
Deutschland”, DOI 10.4232/10.CPoS-2013-06de or URN urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2013-06de4, at http://
www.comparativepopulationstudies.de.

Date of submission: 01.02.2011  Date of Acceptance: 15.08.2012

Dipl.-Soz. Anna Dechant (). State Institute for Family Research at the University of 
Bamberg. Germany. E-Mail: anna.dechant@ifb.uni-bamberg.de
URL: http://www.ifb.bayern.de/mitarbeiter/dechant.html

Dr. Florian Schulz. University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Central University Administration. 
Germany. E-Mail: florian.schulz@fau.de 
URL: http://www.fau.de



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 641

Appendix

Original German Interviews

“im Prinzip ist es, ist es eine Fifty-Fifty-Aufteilung ... Hat sich aber 
einfach so ergeben”

„Ja, das war für mich schon ... von vornherein klar, dass der Haus-
halt nicht allein ... bei der Frau ist ... ich kenne es von daheim auch, 
wir haben auch immer mithelfen müssen, und genauso ist es halt 
da auch“

„das wird einem schon von vornherein klar, dass man dann ..., 
wenn beide auf Arbeit gehen, ... auch beide irgendwie was machen 
müssen”

„Einfach dadurch, dass ich ganztags arbeite und sie halbtags ar-
beitet, macht sie einfach ... am Vormittag die Arbeiten,  ... die so 
anfallen, bis ich abends komme, ist es erledigt, deswegen fällt da 
eigentlich für mich wenig an“

“Ich habe es halt selbstverständlich gefunden, wenn er sowieso da 
ist, auch wenn er jetzt nicht fest da wohnt, dass er seinen Teil halt 
dann mit dazu beitragen kann und das war ihm eigentlich auch von 
vornherein klar, weil er ist nicht so ein Typ, der sich dann ins ge-
machte Nest setzt ..., sondern das war dann für ihn auch selbstver-
ständlich, dass er dann auch ... Haushaltssachen macht”

“wir machen auch am Wochenende, der J. [Ehemann] macht schon 
mal was, aber ich fi nde das auch nicht so notwendig, wenn ich die 
nötige Zeit dafür habe, das zu machen”

„I: wie habt ihr euch zunächst die Aufgaben geteilt? Habt ihr das 
dann irgendwie besprochen? …
B: Das hat sich eigentlich meistens so ergeben“

„B: Das stand nie zur Frage. .... Also da war eigentlich immer schon 
klar, dass das [die Hausarbeit] mein Aufgabenbereich wird.“

„jetzt dann in Zukunft ...  ich bin daheim und habe das Kind, dann 
ist es schon klar, dass ich dann den Großteil des Haushalts ma-
che, weil ich einfach daheim bin, aber wenn ich gleichzeitig arbeite, 
dann sehe ich das nicht ein, dass ich dann auch noch den Haushalt 
machen soll, nur weil ich eine Frau bin, also gar nicht und das sieht 
er auch ein, ... das ist auch völlig klar eigentlich zwischen uns.“

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)



•    Anna Dechant, Florian Schulz642

„I: Hat das bei Ihnen mal angestanden diese Entscheidung, ob der 
Mann einen Teil der Elternzeit nimmt?
B: Ja. ... von mir aus war das eigentlich kein Thema, weil ich gerne 
daheim bleibe, ... aber ich denke er ... hätte überhaupt kein Problem 
damit, Hausmann zu sein und daheim zu bleiben, aber schon allein, 
... was das Stillen angeht, geht es ja gar nicht anders und ich hätte 
mir das auch nicht nehmen lassen, muss ich ganz ehrlich sagen.“

„Wenn jetzt meine Lebensgefährtin den ganzen Tag zuhause wäre, 
würde man sicherlich erwarten, dass sie gewisse Dinge einfach er-
ledigt. Wenn man abends heimkommt, dass dann gewisse Dinge 
gemacht sind, das ist ja wohl klar. Man wäre dann wahrscheinlich 
unzufrieden, wenn es nicht so wäre. Dadurch dass wir beide den 
ganzen Tag unterwegs sind, ist man sicher auch über viele Dinge 
unzufrieden. ... Aber deswegen muss man sich die Dinge gleich-
mäßig teilen und hat gar keine Berechtigung oder keinen Grund, 
abends unzufrieden zu sein, wenn abends das Essen nicht auf dem 
Tisch steht. ... Da kann man nur eine Lösung fi nden indem man 
vorher anruft und fragt: ‚Was gibt’s denn? Hast du schon daran ge-
dacht?‘, man sich selber was macht oder Essen geht.“

„I: Was erwarten Sie denn im Hinblick auf die Aufteilung der Haus-
arbeit ..., wenn das Kind ... da ist? Erwarten Sie ... Verschiebungen, 
wenn die Frau ... das erste halbe Jahr daheim ist? ...
B: Ich glaube nicht, dass sich da was ändert. A. [Name der Part-
nerin] muss sich erst an das Kind gewöhnen und an den Umgang 
mit dem Kind und wird sich vermutlich auch viel darum kümmern 
schlichtweg.“

„Was mir wichtig ist, dass ich weiterhin arbeiten darf. Da hat S. 
[Name des Partners] den charmanten Vorteil, dass er ... unterhalts-
pfl ichtig ist und insofern gar nicht auf die dusslige Idee kommen 
könnte und sagen könnte ‘Süße, ich habe eine tolle Idee. Du bleibst 
zuhause, ich leiste dir das’. ... Was mich davor bewahrt, so die Rolle 
wie meine Mutter das macht. Meine Mutter musste, sobald ich in 
die Schule kam, zu Hause bleiben. Da legt mein Vater auch größten 
Wert darauf. Das war für ihn auch völlig selbstverständlich als ich 
ihm erzählt habe, dass wir ein Baby kriegen, dass ich dann in Zu-
kunft zu Hause bleibe. ... ‚Wie kommst du denn darauf? Du willst ja 
wirklich arbeiten.‘ Ja. Und dann schiebt er das S. in die Schuhe. Ach 
ja, S. kann das ja nicht. Als ob das negativ wäre. Was für mich ein 
Vorteil ist. Also das ist mir sehr wichtig.“

(k)

(l)

(m)

(j)



Division of Paid and Unpaid Work in the Transition to Parenthood    • 643

„Also, sagen wir mal so, so zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt hat er natür-
lich deutlich mehr übernommen als ich.... Aber einfach aufgrund 
der Tatsache, ... ich konnte ja eine Woche lang oder fast gar nicht 
laufen und danach auch nur ganz wenig. ... Aber danach hat sich 
das eigentlich alles wieder auf einen normalen Level eingespielt.“

„weil wir eigentlich auch beide so von der Einstellung her schon 
denken, dass man das halt einfach aufteilt und ich mache halt da-
durch etwas mehr, weil ich halt nur halb arbeite“

„von sich aus ... den ... Wunsch hatte, wenn ein Kind, dann möch-
te er sich auch kümmern. ... ja, es war für ihn schon immer dass 
... er das eigentlich von sich aus gerne wollte und ... von unserm 
Rollenverständnis her ist es so, ... dass wir eine gleichberechtigte 
Vorstellung ... haben“

„die hat jetzt leider, also für uns leider, gekündigt“

„Aber es ist auch oft so, dass, was weiß ich, die Waschmaschine 
müsste leergeräumt werden oder der Geschirrspüler, willst du’s 
jetzt machen oder willst du aufs Kind aufpassen? Er sagt immer 
meistens eher, ich will aufs Kind aufpassen.“

„für uns war’s immer die optimale Regelung: Beide arbeiten und 
beide betreuen das Kind“

„Ich muss allerdings sagen, wenn mein Mann gesagt hätte, er 
möchte das nicht ... weiß ich nicht, ob ich ein Kind hätte haben wol-
len, also die Vorstellung, die ganze Woche mit dem Kind zu Hause 
und nichts anderes ... wär‘, glaube ich, nicht ganz so meins.“

(r)

(s)

(t)

(q)

(p)

(o)

(n)



Published by / Herausgegeben von
Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider

Federal Institute for Population Research 
D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany

Managing Editor /
Verantwortlicher Redakteur
Frank Swiaczny

Assistant Managing Editor /
Stellvertretende Redakteurin
Katrin Schiefer

Language & Copy Editor (English) /
Lektorat & Übersetzungen (englisch)
Amelie Franke

Copy Editor (German) /
Lektorat (deutsch)
Dr. Evelyn Grünheid

Layout / Satz
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs

E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de

Comparative Population Studies

www.comparativepopulationstudies.de

ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet)

Scientifi c Advisory Board / 
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat
Paul Gans (Mannheim) 
Johannes Huinink (Bremen) 
Michaela Kreyenfeld (Rostock)
Marc Luy (Wien) 
Clara H. Mulder (Groningen) 
Notburga Ott (Bochum) 
Peter Preisendörfer (Mainz)
Zsolt Spéder (Budapest)

Board of Reviewers / Gutachterbeirat
Martin Abraham (Erlangen)
Laura Bernardi (Lausanne)
Hansjörg Bucher (Bonn)
Claudia Diehl (Konstanz)
Andreas Diekmann (Zürich)
Gabriele Doblhammer-Reiter (Rostock)
E.-Jürgen Flöthmann (Bielefeld)
Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Wien)
Beat Fux (Salzburg)
Joshua Goldstein (Berkeley)
Karsten Hank (Köln)
Sonja Haug (Regensburg)
Aart C. Liefbroer (Den Haag)
Kurt Lüscher (Konstanz)
Dimiter Philipov (Wien)
Tomáš Sobotka (Wien)
Heike Trappe (Rostock)

© Federal Institute for Population Research 2014 – All rights reserved