The Geography of Gender Divisions of Labour in Britain Author(s): Simon Duncan Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,

New Series, Vol. 16, No. 4 (1991), pp. 420-439 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/623028 . Accessed: 08/05/2011 22:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

420

The
Britain

geography

of gender

divisions

of labour

in

SIMON DUNCAN

in Lecturer Geography, London Schoolof Economics, London WC2A 2AE1 of Department Geography, Revised MS received June1991 25
ABSTRACT Thepaper basicinformation thegeography genderdivisions labour Britain. of in on of menhavea fairly Although provides uniform role in therearesubstantial variations the degreeto whichwomenare Britain, 'breadwinning' throughout spatial in work.Thesevariations domestic interact various paid ways engagedin full-time work,part-time workandfull-time paid is and with indicesof household'conventionality' women'ssocialstatus.Thisgeographyof genderdivisionsof labour a
less familiargeography than those based on local economic or class relations. For instance west central London resembles industrialLancashireor central Scotland, Bristol is rather like the north east, and outer Surrey, Kent and Sussex resemble

rural of in Walesor Fenland. paperrelatesthesespatial The differences a discussion genderdivisionsof labour general, to of and anddiscusses for It therecouldbe a geography patriarchy, attempts possiblereasons thisvariation. alsoaskswhether the of definedstatistics, some initialinvestigation this question. of Noting the severelimitations aggregateandspatially recommends moresociallysensitive, research theseissues. on in-depth paper KEY WORDS: Gender roles,Divisionsof labour, Britain, Patriarchy.

AIMS: FAMILIAR AND UNFAMILIAR GEOGRAPHIES The point of this articleis to present some basic information on the geography of gender divisions of labour in Britain.Geographicaldescriptions of labour market conditions, housing characteristics, voting behaviour, health levels and so on are of course quite common in the literature.These are usually taken as class related phenomena linked to the performance of local economies and we are well furnished with (sometimes misleading) spatial shorthands to summarise these geographies - the north/south divide, rural/urban,inner-city/suburbs are examples. Geographical descriptions of gender roles are less common, although previous research points to significant spatial variations (e.g. Hodgson, 1984; McDowell and Massey, 1984; Mark-Lawson et al., 1985; Walby, 1985; Bowlby et al., 1986; Townsend, 1986; Bagguley and Walby, 1989). However, most of this work focusses on paid work and is often empirically limited to particularcase studies. In contrast I attempt here to provide more geographically comprehensive information. This task also demands some commentary on
Trans.Inst. Br. Geogr.N.S. 16: 420-439 (1991) ISSN: 0020-2754

gender roles in Britain and the social relations of patriarchythat lie behind them. I also attempt to point towards possible research on the processes of this differentiation.Are there variationsin how patriarchy works and the effects it has within Britain?Certainly my mapping exercise suggests that this might be the case. For our pre-existing spatial shorthandsrelating to social class and local economic fortunes seem quite misleading. In terms of the gender division of labour, London (excluding the eastern and suburbs)is ratherlike industrialLancashire central Scotland. Bristol and Southampton resemble south Wales or the north east of England, while the outer commuting belt in Surrey and Sussex is not much different from remote ruralareas in Fenland or midWales. However, before elaborating this less familiar geography I will spend some time in considering the limitations involved in reducing spatially variant social relations to statisticalgeography. LIMITATIONS: SCOPE, DEPTH AND PROCESS There are three sorts of limitation to the work presented here. The first is the general problem of
Printed in Great Britain

Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain

421

representing social relations through spatial patterns. Of course there are spatial patterns in social phenomena. These can be important enough in themselves and also point the way to furtherwork. What is the reason for these variations?But it is not appropriate, as we will see, to infer social relations on this basis. Quite apart from the technical problems of spatial representationusing variable spatial data units which themselves aggregate information, different social processes can lead to the same spatial outcome while the ecological fallacy prevents any simple projection from aggregate patterns to social behaviour. Secondly, there are limitations of scope in this paper. The census information I use deals almost entirely with workplace labour categories and households as units. Hence the paper can say little about internal household and workplace relations, still less abut male violence, sexuality, ideology, state behaviour and all those other elements forming social systems - many of which previous patriarchial work suggests vary spatially within Britain.Nor was the relatively limited informationwhich does exist in the census, and the other statistical sources used, normally collected in order to find information on gender roles. On the other hand, these sources do unconsciously assume a particular male-orientated and traditionalform of gender relations. Put together this means that I have had to make various proxy assumptions. Some of these assumptions have to be relatively heroic, but although inadequate in themselves these proxies perform well enough as indicators of relativevariation. The paper is also largely restricted to the 1981 census, a now outdated snapshot of a historically unfolding process. So as well as suffering from spatial superficiality the paper proceeds with a good dose of historical amnesia. Finally, partly as a consequence of this, the paper focusses on gender roles (what men and women do) ratherthan the gender relations that cause them (how men and women interactsocially). It is relatively easy to map areas where, for example, women are not so commonly involved in full-time work, but we cannot say much about why this is. Maybe 'womens' jobs' are not available.Maybe they are available but childcare is not. Maybe women don't want those jobs for any number of reasons (they gain self-respect and economic power by other means; conversely they may lack self-esteem, or the social security system may make these jobs economically irrational, etc). Maybe they want these jobs, and they are available, but men don't let them take such jobs - again in any number of ways (job discrimination,lack of domestic

support, male violence at home, in the workplace or while journeying to work, etc). The literature suggests all these explanations, and more, but a study such as this can only speculate about their relative importancein differentareas.And yet another consequence of focussing on gender roles is the tendency to present a geography of women rather than of women vis-a-vismen. Given all these limitations, then what is the value of this paper? I believe it is twofold. First of all, this basic geographical information has not been presented before, and is one way of stimulating research questions of the sort enumerated above. The patterns described need explaining and more sensitive process-orientated work on gender relations in particularareas is a way to do this. Secondly, the information presented provides a means of choosing case study areas for research on the processes by which gender roles are created-and geographical variations in this - based on comparative similarities and differences. And maybe this sort of work also dovetails nicely with current demands (e.g. in the National Curriculum) that geography should be more about facts and maps! GENDER DIVISIONS OF LABOUR In 1981 nearly 78 per cent of adult males in Britain were 'economically active' compared to only 45-6 per cent of women (Table I). This figure refers to people in, or seeking, paid employment. Despite their economic and social importance, full-time- but unpaid - domestic workers are not counted as economically active in the British census. However, if we add to the economically active total those people classifiedby the census as 'other economically
TABLE Gender divisions labour: I. Britain 1981 of over %ofadults 16 Men Women
In full-time employment In part-time employment Temporary sick, seeking work Total 'economically active' Housewives and independent means Total 'working people' Retired, students, permanently sick 67-2 1-8 8.8 77-8 0.5 78-3 21-7 25-9 16-3 3-4 45.6 40-6 86-2 13-8

Total

100-0

100-0

Source: 1981 Census.

422

SIMON DUNCAN

inactive'- which in turn is made up of the subcategories 'housewives' and 'persons of independent means' (OPCS, 1981) this gender division alters dramatically. This new category, which we label 'working people' now incorporates 85 per cent of adult women, almost double the female 'economically active' census figure. But for men there is only the slightest increase to just over 78 per cent. This is because 8-8 million women were counted as 'other economically active' comparedto a mere 99 000 men. Given the disrepancy between the two figures, we can safely assume that the vast majority of these women were in the 'housewife' category. The census does not record 'househusbands'.2Similarly 76 per cent of men were in, or seeking, full-time paid work, compared to little more than 26 per cent of women. Even more striking,a mere 1-8 per cent of men were in part-timepaid work compared to over 16 per cent of women. These figures clearly show a markeddivergence in the work experience of men and women. There have of course been some important developments since 1981, in particular the number of mothers in paid employment with dependent children has increased from 51 per cent to 59 per cent in 1989. Nonetheless, there has in fact been little aggregate change in the overall gender distributionsshown in Table I. In 1989 little over 51 per cent of women were 'economically active', an increase split almost equally between fulltime and part-time work. The figures for men were very similar to 1981 although part-time work had approximately doubled to nearly 4 per cent. Table I also shows that a major part of the labour carried out in capitalist societies is domestic work undertakenoutside formallabourmarkets.Almost 41 per cent of women were classified as 'housewives'. In addition part-time work for women, accounting for another 16 per cent, is almost always subsidiary to and designed to fit around domestic responsibilities (Martin and Roberts, 1984, Morris, 1989). For capitalist markets do not in themselves produce and maintain socialised workers and consumers, nor do they play more than a very minor role in bringing up childrenor caring for the infirm.Although the British state is vitally concernedwith such matters - the very stuff of social policy legislation - it too leaves the vast bulk of this work to be undertakenby domestic workers who are unpaid in the sense of a formal wage or labour exchange. This is why William Beveridge, in his 1942 reportwhich effectively set the guidelines for the post-war welfare state in Britain, tried to remedy what he later called 'the defensive

appreciation of the housewife as an unpaid worker' (Beveridge, 1947, p. 246) where: Thegreatmajority married of womenmustbe regarded as occupiedon work which is vital enough though withoutwhichtheirhusbands couldnot do their unpaid, paid work and without which the nation could not continue 1942,p. 50; see Land, 1976) (Beveridge, For this unpaid domestic labour is also pre-eminently women's work, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, surveys show that the vast bulk of such work is performed by women (Gershunny,
1983; Witherspoon, 1985, 1988; Ashford, 1987). This

applies to housework, childcare, and the care of elderly and infirm persons alike. Men, of course, do undertakesuch work from time to time and may even predominatein some 'masculine'specialised tasks like tending cars or mending household appliances.Some without access to the labourof wives or mothers must even look after themselves. Many single women, in contrast,are solely responsible for the care of children and other dependents. Similarly,many 'housewives' also end up doing large amounts of unpaid work in support of their spouse's jobs (Finch,1983). Farming is just one obvious example (Little,1987). Only rarely do men take on domestic work for others or care for dependents. Still less do they take responsibility for planning or executing this work. Only 11 per cent of single parentfamilieswere headed by fathersin 1989, for example. Domestic work is accorded low status (with the exception of those few jobs mostly carried out by men) and is badly rewarded in monetary terms, in access to household resources like leisure time or the 'family' car, and in terms of power over income disposal or household decision making. Indeed, the homemaker role, far from protecting women in fact places them in a relatively resource poor position and often constitutes a major cause of their poverty and (Brannen Wilson, 1987; Deem, 1986; Glendinning andMiller, 1987). Domestic work, andhence women's work, is also crucialin defining social roles. What sort of paid work men and women are able to do - or are thought to be able to do - is partly defined by this gendered relationshipto domestic work. The division of domestic labour will therefore play a key role in determiningpeople's life quality and experience, both directly and indirectlyin influencingother areasof life such as access to paid work. And this division is a division of gender. All this accords well with survey evidence which

The divisions labour Britain in 423 of of geography gender shows an overwhelming expectation in Britainfor an couple households women will be freed of domestic ideal household of breadwinner father and home- work for others and men may have to look after maker mother (Ashford, 1987)- although it is also themselves. In others, however, the opposite effect clear that men and women differon what the content occurs. The poverty trap of state benefits versus paid of this relationship should be. Whereas women work, and the 'time-trap'of arranging child care or wanted a partnership,men wanted a traditionalwife care for other dependents often prevents women (Mansfieldand Collard, 1989). And indeed for 68 per from taking paid employment. For instance only 17 cent of dual partnerhouseholds in Britainin 1983 the per cent of single mothers were in full-time paid wife was either a full-timehousewife or combined this employment in 1988-the lowest rate in the EC work with part-timepaid work (Martin and Roberts, (Cohen, 1990). Even more startling, the employment 1984). For single women, 35 per cent were in full-time of single mothers has almost halved since the middomestic work or employed part time, compared to 1970s. The much lauded 'feminisation'of paid work only 2 per cent of single men. It is normally only does not extend to these women, quite the reverse when women enter full-time paid work that signifi- they are increasingly excludedfrom paid work. The cant changes begin to occur to these traditionalmale same is likely to be true for women caring for elderly breadwinnerand female homemaker roles. Men take or sick adults. This may well reflect the increasing on more household tasks, including some childcare, withdrawal of public services and an increasing while women often gain a greater say in household 'community'care workload undertakenby women, as income disposal and decision making. Only rarely, well as benefit changes which have strengthened however, is there any role reversal (Morris, 1989; various poverty traps and made taking on more paid Pahl, 1989). Even those women with full-time paid work economically irrational. The point here, however, is that in geographical jobs married to unemployed husbands still end up doing most of the household work (Laite and terms, it is well known that the distributionof household types varies significantly over space - both Halfpenny, 1987). locally and regionally. The former probably largely reflects housing market conditions and the latter WHY SHOULD GENDER ROLES VARY differentialeconomic and migration trends;although LOCALLY? different 'cultures', for instance ideas and expecThe gender divisions of labour discussed in the last tations about gender roles and hence the nature of section are clearly of great social significance, but households, will also be implicated. So in inner why should we expect these divisions to have any London, for example, only 37 per cent of households geographical expression? After all, it might be contained a dual sex couple, compared to 60 per cent supposed, in modem Britain households normally in Buckinghamshire. centre arounda female-malecouple living in the same Secondly, as has been well researched,gender roles dwelling. Gender divisions might be obvious on this and relations interact with divisions in the formal scale - men dominate in exteral domestic work labour market. Formal work functions are spatially concerned with cars,gardens, sheds and the dwelling separated leading to different concentrations of exterior, while women equally dominate in house- occupational groups in various areas, as a whole work and childcare carried out inside the dwelling. generation of geographical work has shown (arising But this spatiality would hardly be significant on a from Massey, 1984). But these capitalist divisions of local or regional scale. However, this supposition is labourare also gendered;mechanismsof occupational wrong, for a number of interlinkingreasons. sex-typing and segregation seem remarkably rigid Firstof all, and most obvious, there is an increasing and enduring. Hence people are not only allocated diversity in household types. By 1989 the 'traditional' 'unskilled', 'skilled', 'professional' jobs and so on in household of cohabiting dual sex couple and children class terms, they are usually also allocated to men's only made up 26 per cent of households-single jobs and women's jobs in gender terms.This segregaperson households accounted for almost as much (25 tion is both hierarchialor 'vertical'segregation in the per cent) while single-parent families accounted for same occupation and functional or 'horizontal' 17 per cent. In as many as 40 per cent of households between occupations. Indeed one survey found that there was no cohabiting dual sex couple at all (OPCS, in the early 1980s 63 per cent of women in paid jobs 1990). These figures have considerable implications worked only with other women, while for the male for gender divisions of labour. In some of these non- cohabitees of these women in the survey a full 81 per

424

SIMON DUNCAN

cent worked only with men (Martin and Roberts, 1984). In other words, spatial divisions of paid labour also mean a spatialpatterning in both the amount and type of male and female paid employment, and in the balance between the two (cf. Walby, 1986). State policy can be considered in a similarway. The benefit system, which militates against women taking up paid employment (Morris, 1989) is by and large nationally invariant. But other state interventions are strongly patterned in a geographical sense. It is of course almost axiomatic that women's assigned responsibility for caring for children and other dependents severely constrains their uptake of paid work. In the early 1980s fully 56 per cent of nonworking women cited childcareas their reason for not taking paid work, with a similarpercentage citing the same reason for theirup take of part-timejobs (Martin and Roberts, 1984; Cohen, 1990). Yet the provision of childcare services, both public and private, is scandously low in Britain compared to the rest of Europe (Moss, 1988; Cohen, 1990). Nonetheless, there are significant variations around this low average. Regionally Scotland and inner London have day nursery places for around 10 per cent of the under-fives, compared to just 2 per cent nationally and rates of below 1 per cent in Wales and the south west. Some local authorities have no places at all while a few pioneers have up to 20 per cent provision. The importance of this variation on women's access to paid employment will be significant, but is not researched (cf. Bowlby, 1990). Certainly those regions with higher provision rates also show higher rates of women in full-time employment. Variationin the provision of public services for the old and infirm will have similareffects. The varying nature of public transport systems will be yet another factor, given women's more constrained mobility (Pickup,1988). Variations in the availability and nature of paid work and the provision of public services will in this way affect gender divisions of labour in a geographically significant way. The position is more involved than this however, for individual relations between men and women and indeed constructions of feminity and masculinity, will be spatially variant as they develop in the contexts of workplaces, homes and local social networks (cf. Bowlby et al., 1986). These constructions will then influence the roles men and women take up - how they each experience and use their social environments. Again, the effects of paid work are most researched. As a general rule the more money a woman earns independently in the labourmarket,the

more power in the household and in local social groups like political parties (Pahl, 1989). Studies show, however, that this is not simply a matter of access to paid work. Rather,women's social position relative to men is more a question of what work women do in relationto what men do (McDowell and Massey, 1984, Mark-Lawsonet al., 1985, MarkLawson, 1988). Occupational sex-typing, gendered hierarchiesand gender mechanisms of subordination (e.g. sexual harassment)can confirmand develop preexisting gender roles. It is perhaps only when men and women do the same sort of work, in the same conditions, for the same pay, that differentialroles are seriously questioned (see Mark-Lawsonet al., 1985). Clearly, the scope for geographical variation in these interlinkages is substantial. For just one illustration rates of occupational segregation have been shown to vary substantiallybetween differentlabour markets (Walby and Bagguley, 1990). Nor is this variation purely a matter of local industrial mixes reflectingnationalrates of sex segregation in different industries.Segregation rates in the same industryalso differ on a local scale, perhaps reflecting different 'levels of patriarchalhegemony' in different places (ibid, p. 79). Such variations will then interact with gender relations in the home. For example it is now well established that different modes of household finance management - with different consequences for male and female power - are strongly linked to different levels of household income and occupational status (Morris, 1989). These determinants obviously vary according to local labourmarketconditions. In addition, however, we might also expect that particularlocal industrial, household and community histories will lead to the emergence of local cultures which in turn encourage particularways of handling household finance.So in areaslike industrial with a long history of full-timepaid work Lancashire, for women, the custom of the wife taking control of household wages and allocating spending money to the husbandhas been most common (Zweig, 1952). It is also in such areaswhere 'jointmarriages'(where the couple associate together in the same social network) developed earliest and most completely (Gittins, 1982; Franklin,1989). And it is also here that women have had higher access to and influenceon the 'public' spheres of trade unionism and politics traditionally reserved for men (Mark-Lawson,1988). Because gender experiences in paid work have been most researched there is a tendency to accord this prime place in the construction of gender relations. This is unlikely to be the case. For instance,

in divisions labour Britain The geography gender of of

425

much of the socialisation of children into particular gender expectations is centred on the home, as is the development and maintenance of adult gender identities. This takes place through such processes as physical and emotional caring, sexuality and domestic violence (see Walby, 1989 for a review). What is almost unknown, however, is how these processes vary in particularlocal culturaland physical contexts, although it seems clear that this will be important. The same can be said for the role of local social networks. In some areas a new mother will enter a community of married mothers positioned in a particularrole of childrearingand domestic labour vis-avis their 'breadwinning'husbands (cf. Oakley, 1974). In others she will be part of an alternative culture focussed around single motherhood, group childcare, the benefit system and paid work. Similarly,areaswill differ in the degree to which women perceive it safe to travel alone, or in the tenacity with which men police women's participation in social and leisure venues (cf. Valentine, 1989; Rogers, 1988). Again, these topics are almost completely unresearched in terms of local variations - even though their spatiality is likely to be crucial. As Bowlby et al., (1986) state, the local area is not just a 'setting' for the development of gender relations, it is in fact an extension of their process of production. Because of all these interlinking reasons - the spatial variability in household types, in gender divisions of paid labour, in state intervention, in the construction of gender identities - we would expect FIGURE1. Working women in full-time employment, 1981 some considerable variation in gender roles on local Source:1981 Census and regional scales. This certainly seems to be the case using aggregate census figures, and in the next section we will describe some of these variations for unemployment variations, and with relatively uniform rates between 80 per cent and 90 per cent. Britainas a whole. The significance of this map is that it is full-time paid work that best markswomen's distance from the THE GEOGRAPHY OF GENDER DIVISIONS 'homemaker' role; part-time paid work normally OF LABOUR IN BRITAIN supplements or even reinforcesthis role. This is not to Full-time work say that women employed full-time escape the paid Figure I maps the numberof women in full-time paid responsibility for domestic work; all the evidence work as a percentage of working women (i.e. those shows that role reversalor even equality is rareeven in with or seeking paid jobs and those with full-time this group. However, the evidence also shows that for domestic work) at the District Council level. There is those women domestic tasks are more flexible and obviously significant variation between areas and negotiable, where they possess more influenceboth in around the national average of 30 per cent. The very the household and in wider social situations (see prehighest rate in 1981 was 51 per cent for the London vious section). As Townsend (1986) has pointed out, Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, compared to the well-known convergence of regional employment the very lowest rate of just 19 per cent for Rother, in rates for women since the 1950s may not be as signifieast Sussex. A similar map for men should show cant as it first appears- for most of this convergence comparatively little variation, effectively recording is accounted for by part-time employment.

426

SIMON DUNCAN

The geographical patterns which emerge in Figure 1 seem basically regional and national in scale. There are urban/ruraland local scale differences, but these seem largely subsumed within the overall regional patterns. Hence Exeter, Cardiff,Ipswich or Norwich do stand out with somewhat higher rates within regions showing low rates of full-time work-but these cities show rates markedlylower than those for towns in high rate regions such as the north west or central Scotland. Indeed, small-town and even semiruralareas in these high rate regions match the rates for cities in low rate regions. Presumably, then, this variation reflects social histories and cultures at a regional scale, rather than current labour market specificity as much recent 'locality research' has tended to assume (cf. Cooke, 1989). Local labour markets do of course present a range of job opportunities and constraints of various sorts and Figure I records this. (Although it must be remembered that local labour markets differ in scale and nature for different occupational groups and are already sex-typed consequent to the operation of gender relations at work; see Walby, 1987; Duncan and Savage, 1989). But whether and how women take these opportunities for full-time work, and how labour market constraints affect them, depends on wider social relations in the household, community and workplace.Interestingly,a similarconclusion was reached by Morris (1991) focussing on a neighbourhood scale - although clearly my speculations here demand more detailed research. On a regional scale high rates are found in London and contiguous areasof the 'western crescent'including some outliers in new or expanding towns like Crawley, Harlow and Basildon. The highest rates of all are found in west inner London. Industrial Lancashireand central Scotland also emerge as high rate regions, with smaller high rate areas around Stoke and Leicester.All these areas have long histories of women in full-time work. Scotland as a whole recordscomparativelyhigh rates.The new towns and expanding suburbs around Glasgow join the very highest group, while regional cities like Aberdeen or Dundee show higher rates than their English or Welsh counterparts,and even traditionalcoal-mining or heavy metal areas in central Scotland show relatively high rates comparedto apparentlysimilarareas in Englandand Wales. There are low rate areas in the north and west of Scotland - but perhaps many 'housewives' are in fact heavily engaged in nondomestic (if often unpaid) work like crofting and tourism. This may explain the surprisinglyhigh rates

in the central Highlands and Shetland where the transition to paid work may be easier for such women. Certainly the apparent contrast between higher Scottish rates for women in full-time paid work and popular, possibly misleading, ideas of macho men in traditionalhouseholds - and the social strainsthat can result - is worthy of some research(cf. Wheelock, 1990 on north east England).For instance, it appearsthat wife rapeis almost twice as common in Glasgow than in English cities (Painter,1991). In contrast Wales, the Welsh borders and south west England show almost uniformly low rates for women in full-time paid work. Other low rate areas include the south coast, much of EastAnglia, Fenland and the east Midlands stretching up to north-east England and non-industrial northern England. It is remarkablehow in these areas quite large towns and cities do little to disturb such low rates. Some, like Hull, Plymouth, Swansea, Lincoln or Bournemouth record the same low rates as surroundingmore rural areas. Similarly, the urbanised areas of traditionally male paid work in south Wales, Nottinghamshire/ south Yorkshireand north east England show almost uniformly low rates. Interestingly, outer commuter areas around London in Essex, Kent and Sussex also show low rates; long distance commuting by men demands greater imputs of domestic work by women while perhapsthe creation of a 'rural idyll' in the outer suburbs reinforces this division of labour in an ideological sense. This is in some contrast to the more newly industrialisedareas to the north and west of London - although even here note lower rates in some commuting areas. Finally, it is interesting how throughout these low rate areas it is the new or expanding towns (e.g. Cambridge, Newmarket, Durham, Crawley) together with Brighton-that mini-Londonby the sea - that show higher rates.

PART-TIME PAID WORK Part-time paid work is less conceptually interesting for my purposes here, because for women such work is more integrated with a homemakerrole ratherthan indicating departure from it. Part-time employment is also less well paid, with systematically worse increments, benefits and job security (Hurstfield, 1980; Robinson and Wallace, 1984). Nonetheless 19 per cent of working women were employed part-time in 1981 and it is the case that the more independent income a woman receives, normally the more power she holds within the household vis-a-vis spouse or

Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain

427

the broad swathe of above average part-time rates over much of southern and central England roughly coincided with the area of average full-time rates. Part-time work was less developed in Scotland although the same broad conclusions also apply. Exceptions to these generalisations are again some new and expanding towns with high rates both for part-time and full-time paid work for women (e.g. Crawley, Harlow, Cambridge,east Kilbride)and a few areaswith high part-timerates but low full-timerates. Usually the latter are places with established gender divisions of labour emphasising part-time work for women. Grimsby, Cleethorpes and York, with the highest rates in the country with 25 per cent of working women in part-time paid work, are good examples. But some 'sunrise','high-tech' areas would seem to be joining this group, Winchester and Waverley in Surrey(both 22 per cent) are prime cases. Overall, this distribution of women's part-time paid work contradicts some caricatured versions of the feminisation/spatial divisions of labour thesis (cf. Sayer, 1985). In 1981 feminisation through part-time paid work was not particularlydeveloped in those peripheral areas previously emphasising male industrial jobs such as south Wales and north east England- at least not in the aggregate terms we use here. Only 2-3 per cent of working men were in part time work in 1981 and a map on the same scales as Figure 2 would remainblank.
2. womenin part-time FIGURE Working 1981 employment,
Source:1981 Census

FULL-TIME DOMESTIC WORK Finally, Figure 3 maps the distribution of women in full-time domestic work in 1981. A map of men possibly in this role (the census conflates any 'househusbands' with men of independent means) would again be virtually blank with small variations around the 0-6 per cent national average of working men. However, the census may well record many de facto househusbands as unemployed but 'economically active'. Similarly,many 'housewives' (47-1 per cent of working women) in fact carry out unpaid nondomestic work. Farmers'wives are just one example. Some 'housewives' may also be in casual paid employment. Nontheless, the census will probably have been accurate in defining their social role as that of 'housewife' and these women can be placed squarely in the 'homemaker'role in terms of their position in gender divisions of labour. Figure 3 is of course largely the statistical residual of Figures 1 and 2 combined. Nonetheless the geographical patterning of this unreformedhomemakerrole for women is clear.

parents. Hence part-time paid work can be said to modify, at least, the homemakerrole for women. Figure 2, which shows the geographical pattern of high and above average rates of part-time paid work for women, seems to confirm this conclusion. Areas with high rates of full-time paid work for women in 1981 usually had low part-time rates (e.g. London, Berkshire, industrial Lancashire). Similarly, those areas with low full-time rates usually also had low part-time rates (e.g. Wales, the south west, eastern England, north east England). Thus the London Borough of Camden, Blaneau Gwent in industrial south Wales and Skye and Lochalshin the north west Highlands were all alike in having the lowest national rate for part-timeemployment at 12 per cent of working women. Rather,high rates of part-timepaid work for women were most common in those areas to the north of London with average to above average fulltime rates (Bristolcan be seen as an outlier).Likewise,

428

SIMON DUNCAN

<

miles

100

7_

km 100o FIGURE3. Working women in full-time domestic work, 1981 Source: 1981 Census

categories. To some extent this question can be followed up using other census data. A first step was to conflate Figures 1-3 in one index of dominant work roles for women. District councils were graphed according to (1) the percentage of working women in full-timedomestic work and (2) the ratio between the percentage of working women in part-time and fulltime paid work. Each area could then be assigned to 'homemaker' and 'paid worker' categories, and graduations within them. Figure 4 summarises this process. Again, there was considerabledifferentiation between areas and this was spatially patterned, as Figure 5 shows, although the allocation of marginal places to particular categories was sometimes arbitrary, see Figure 4. A map of dominant work roles for men, using similar indices would show no variation- the whole country would be covered by a 'very high paid worker' category (a category not applying at all to women). As Figure4 shows, the overall relationshipwas one where increasingrates for full-timedomestic workers were accompanied by an increasing part-time: fulltime paid worker ratio. However, as noted earlier, this relationship is reversed in those areas with high domestic worker rates. In such areas, those relatively few women who are employed tend to be employed full-time. Presumably this records a basic stratum of full-time 'women's jobs', predominantly in public services, which mirrorpopulation distribution. VARIATIONS IN CLASS AND 'CONVENTIONALITY'

I then used this spatial framework to look more closely at gender role variations within the paidworker and homemaker categories, using census indices of occupational status and conventional household structure.For this purpose I examined two contrasting categories, the paidworker group as a whole (78 DCs) and an extreme homemaker group (22 DCs). See the appendix for a listing. In terms of occupational status there were wide variations within the paid-worker group. Using the percentage of 'economically active' in socioeconomic groups 1-4 (professional and managerial THE GEOGRAPHY OF DOMINANT WORK workers) as an index, figures ranged from only 4 per ROLES cent of women in Leicester to 15-6 per cent in the The census data used in Figures 1-3 gives us little London Borough of Richmond,with a group average indication, however, of internal household relation- of 7-8per cent. Nonetheless, even the highest DC rate ships or, indeed, of what sort of paid work is involved. for women was below the group average for men There can of course be significant differences in (19-9 per cent) who scored 35 per cent in Baret (outer gender roles within 'paidworker' and 'homemaker' London). Basically, the paid worker group split into

Over 50 per cent of working women were full-time domestic workers in 1981 over most of Wales, southwest England, the south coast, eastern England, the north-east,Galloway, and partsof north east Scotland and the Highlands. Extremesof over 60 per cent were reachedin parts of north Wales, Cornwalland Devon, Kent, Essex and the north west Highlands - although unrecorded non-domestic work in farming and tourism will probably be significant in these areas. The lowest rates of just over 30 per cent were in west inner London.

Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain 118.0 -

429

Highest (Grimsby)

HOMEMAKERS . (High) HOMEMAKERS (Average), M,

0
.+_

.* ..

.sH:

:HOMEMAKERS . *- - i ' ?(Very high) .. .. ' -

F
r

-o

63.3 UK average

PAIDWORKERS : (Average)

":

:*
*

:.:

*'-- :: ' **:* ? : . ?

: ?

"0 .co _
CL

(Average) ' ' '.:' * : WORKES PAID

* =

a)

MIXED
25.0 -

E
3

Lowest a) (Westminster) E
,.-

PAIDWORKERS (High)
I f

a-

30.0 Lowest (Camden)

47.1 UK average

63.0 Highest (Dwyfor)

% full-time domestic labour

FIGURE4. Assigning dominant work roles for women: District Councils 1981 Source:1981 Census

two groups of DCs. The first consisted of west inner London with the highest values, together with high values in the rest of west and south London, contiguous areas in Berkshire and Surrey, Basingstoke and Trafford. Low scores were recorded in the remainingDCs, that is in east London, the new towns, the Midlands paid worker areas,industrialLancashire, central Scotland and the Scottish cities. Interestingly, however, most of the homemaker areas also scored highly in occupational terms, with a higher group average of 8-6 per cent. The Welsh industrial areas were the major exception. Presumably this again represents the fact that the few women employed in these areas will be in public service jobs with a high proportion of professional workers. The geographical contrast with male occupational status is quite instructive. Again, there is a broad distinction between London, Surreyand the 'western

crescent' with relatively high rates, and the rest. In contrast to women, however, men with high occupational status are most concentrated in the extreme southern and northern London boroughs, together with contiguous outer suburban areas in Surrey, and the home counties. West inner London Berkshire, is not nearly so important, in relative terms, as it is for high status employed women. This suggests the effect of gendered life cycle and housing market factors, where many women 'disappear'as economically active when they move into marriage and the suburbs.Their husbands may initially also have lived in west inner London as single men (although this is less likely than for women, see below). But these men retain their careers on marriage, and indeed also obtain a suburban home complete with domestic worker. We might imagine that certain inner city areas may be particularly important for women's

430

SIMON DUNCAN

FIGURE Dominant 5. workroleforwomen,1981 Source: 1981 Census

social mobility and for the development of alternative gender roles (cf. Winchester and White, 1988). this speculation is supported by the indices on household 'conventionality', as well as more detailed work on socio-spatial mobility, housing access and lifestyles, as I will show. However, using DC level data this is most noticeable for London (see Duncan, 1990, 1991, for further detail). Again more detailed follow up work is required. In the homemaker group of DCs men score substantially lower than women in terms of occupational status in comparisonto other areas.(Again, the Welsh industrial areas are an exception where both score low). Most women in these areas were in a domestic role in 1981, but the few women in full-time paid work usually possess higher occupational status than the bulk of employed men. Again, this may have

interesting effects on class-gender interactionin such areas. There is also a considerable differentiationwithin the 'paidworker' areas in terms of household Two proxy indices were used to 'conventionality'. this. The first was the percentage of represent households consisting of, or including, a marriedor cohabiting male-female couple. (Pensioner households, where bereavement will be most likely, were excluded). The second index was the proportion of 'economically active' women (i.e. in paid work) who lived by themselves. These women would be both economically independent and were not party to a marriage contract binding them to a male 'head of household'. Marriage is of course the major institutional means by which women come to take the domestic role of housewife, and the pseudo-marriage of cohabitation (which census counts as married)is similarin this respect (Delphy, 1976). Indeed,right up to 1970 a divorced husband could sue his ex-wife's lover for damages representing the loss of her unpaid 'services' (Hart,1989). Clearly both these indices are particularlycrude. Some marriedcouples may well be 'unconventional', some single persons may just be waiting for conventionality to happen or be involuntary single through bereavement. Similarlysome marriedwomen may be financially independent, while the index does not record single women in multi-personhouseholds and will hence seriously underestimate 'independence'in those areas with high rates of multiple occupation. Nonetheless, I do take these as adequate, if rough, estimates of relativedifference. Certainly there are significant variations in both indices at the DC level within the paid worker group. Household 'conventionality' ranges from only 35 per cent in the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to 82 per cent in Strathkelvin in central Scotland. (The national average was 73 per cent in 1981). This split between low and high rates is different, however, to thatfor occupationalstatus.Low rates of 'conventionality' (below 57 per cent) were found in central and west London, Oxford, Birmingham, Leicester, Manchester, Salford, Edinburgh and Dundee. Particularlyhigh rates were found in some London suburbs (e.g. Bexley with 77 per cent), western crescent areas (e.g. Basingstoke with 80 per cent), and central Scotland outside large cities. In these areas rates were similar or even above those in the homemaker group of DCs. Low household conventionality' is very much a city phenomenon except, surprisingly, for the two most peripheral

Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain

431

homemaker areas of Skye and Lochalsh and the Western Isles (68 per cent and 64 per cent respectively). These latter figures perhaps record the effects of marriedmen working away from home in areas of high unemployment and low population. University towns may also show lower 'conventionality' levels. The 'independent woman' index showed a similar distribution, ranging between 25 per cent in Kensington and Chelsea and 3 per cent in east Kilbride in central Scotland (the national average was 8 per cent). Now, however, the relatively less conventional areas (with high scores) were restricted outside central and west London to Oxford, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. Rates in the eastern and outer western London suburbs and the western crescent were again just as low, indeed often lower, than in 'homemaker'areas. The distribution of single independent men was similar except that the Scottish cities no longer recorded high scores. Interestingly, however, both the national average and the highest scores were lower for men (5-5 per cent nationally and 18 per cent in Westminster) than for women. Maybe this reflects the fact that women are often pressured to give up full-time work with marriage or the advent of children; hence to retain economic independence they are more likely to remain single, while the opposite applies to men. Overall, these two indices of 'conventionality' and 'women's independence' tended to distinguish between large urban areas on the one handespecially inner urban areas although university towns may also be included - and industrial towns, small towns, suburbs and rural areas on the other. The paid worker/homemaker distinction was less relevant. A group of DCs with high rates of part-time work for women (29 DCs, see Appendix) fitted into this pattern. With generally high rates of domestic work, occupational status and household conventionality these resembled the 'homemaker' category. Only Hove, one part of the Brighton conurbation, departed from this pattern with low rates of conventionality. Adding in occupational status gives another socio-spatial dimension to these 'conventionality' categories. The less 'conventional' paid worker DCs score highly in status terms in west inner London (and Oxford) but lower in east inner London and provincial cities. Similarly, the more 'conventional' paid worker DCs split between high status areas in the west London suburbsand the 'western crescent', and low status industrial and new towns (see Appendix).

THE GEOGRAPHY OF GENDER ROLES AND ACCESS TO HOUSING Does social behaviour differin these paid worker area sub-groups as distinguished by occupational status and 'conventionality'? One indication is given by differentialaccess to housing. Securing housing is of course a prime household task, on a par with gaining income and carryingout domestic work. But how this housing is acquired is also a gendered process, depending on definitions of economic competence and social status. It is for this reason that the increasing polarisation in housing access in Britainis also a process of feminisation- female headed households are increasingly concentrated on high cost, but low quality, private rented accomodation or in the less attractive council housing (Sexty, 1990). Owneroccupation, in contrast,usually demands higher economic competence, combined with judgements about social status, for example employment prospects. It is also the chief means of gaining access to housing in Britain even for such apparently economically irrationalcases as young, single and mobile workers. The access of women to owner-occupation provides another clue to their relative status in various areas. Do they gain access in their own right-defined socially as independent and economically competent persons - or via a male head of household who is described as the possessor of these qualities? Table II presents this information for the paid worker sub-groups identified above, as well as for the extreme homemaker DCs. The table is based on borrowing records from the Nationwide Anglia Building Society, currently the second largest in Britain. Women borrowers are defined by Nationwide Anglia as single women or joint mortgagors where a women's name came first. There will of course be many joint mortgages where a man's name is first, but where a woman co-borrower will be contributing a substantial part of repayment costs. In such cases, however, whatever the size of the contributionthe woman is defined as secondary and it is this socially defined role we are interested in here. There are two major observations to make about Table II. One is the increase in borrowing by women since 1981, especially by single women. The other is that borrower rates for both single women and single men decrease as 'conventionality' increases. For marriedmen, the traditionalborrowers, the converse was true. This is of course not surprising given the way I measured conventionality, although it is interesting that occupational status is less important.

432

SIMON DUNCAN TABLE Building II. borrowers sexandmarital status: worker homemaker 1981/89 and areas Society by paid %married men
1981 1989

%women
1981 1. Paid workerareas High SEG/Low Conv Low SEG/Low Conv High SEG/High Conv Low SEG/High Conv 2. High domesticlabour homemaker areas 1989

%married women
1981 1989

%single men
1981 1989

%single women
1981 1989 Total

26 18 14 13

34 27 23 20

47 60 65 69

36 50 53 58

7 7 6 6

8 8 7 7

27 22 21 18

30 23 24 22

19 11 8 7

26 19 16 13

100 100 100 100

12

19

75

63

13

18

11

100

Source: calculated from Nationwide Anglia Building Society special tabulations

and women about who does what, for whom and what is expected to return.But if gender roles vary so significantly, do the relations which produce them also vary? (cf. Halford, 1989) We explore this question furtherin this section. A first stage is to establish what these gender relations consist of and how they are structured.This is where the concept of patriarchy becomes useful. Patriarchy can be defined as 'a system of social strucutres, and practices, in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women' (Walby, 1989, pp. 21314). What is this domination about? It is not just a matter of gender discriminating bias, rather it is about controlling social resources.Partly - and this is what we concentrated on in this paper - partriarchal domination seeks to control the labour of women so as to benefit men. Women do more work for less reward. But we should not forget that patriarchal domination is also about controlling women in themselves, to establish power over female sexuality and also to establish and defend ideas of masculinity and femininity. Clearly, patriarchy as a social system will underlie both divisions of labour and household dynamics, helping therefore to determine the economic, social and demographic characteristics of A GEOGRAPHY OF PATRIARCHY? populations. This is why census informationgives us some proxy informationabout gender roles. The previous section describes at some length the How does patriarchaldomination work? Walby geography of gender divisions of labour in Britain. (1987, 1989) identifies six dimensions which together Despite limitations of both source material and form a self-reinforcingsystem. These are divisions of labourin the household (1) patriarchal methodology, it is apparent that there are wide variations within Britainand that these variations show a divisions of labour in paid work (2) patriarchal (3) patriarchal spatial ordering. It is of course axiomatic that gender practicesin the state roles are produced and maintained by underlying (4) male violence social relations of gender - relations between men (5) male definitions of sexuality

However, note that this effect is more pronounced for single women than for single men. Marriedmen were in a majority in all areas in 1981 except marginallyin the high occupational status/low conventionality sub-group. This dominance was significantly less in 1989, however, and by this time married men accounted for little over a third of borrowers in this extreme group. Marriedwomen borrowers remained very much a minority in all areas and for both years. The difference between the married men and married women rates is testimony to the head of household/breadwinner role achieved by men on marriage. This relation does not appear to vary much between areas-rather it is the marrige rate and borrowing by single people which varies. Nonetheless, this is in itself gendered where for single women there is a greater differential between areas than for single men. These results support the work of Munro and Smith (1989) who showed that the housing experiences for men and women are different at the scale of Britainas a whole. We can add here that these different experiences also vary geographically within Britain.

Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain

433

(6) patriarchal practices in civil society, e.g. in religion, the media, education etc. ForWalby it is the firsttwo dimensions concerning the division of labour,and their interaction,which are fundamental although some feminists would place more emphasis on other dimensions (see Ackers, 1989; Walby 1986). In the household women work to reproduce the labour of men, but have little control over what has been created; men exchange their labour in the capitalist marketfor a wage but women do not typically receive a proportion of that wage equivalent to the value or the time of their work, still less do they control its allocation. Partly, this results from the embodiment of patriarchal power in the institution of marriage (regardless of whether, or how, individual men choose to exercise that power). But also this is where the interactionbetween households and workplaces is crucial.Patriarchalpractices in workplaces deny many women secure, high status or high income jobs and it is usually not possible to combine career development with dependent care. Hence to gain access to resources women must marry or live with a man. This interaction in turn demands a 'historical compromise' between the interests of patriarchsand capitalists. The latter are denied full access to women's labour, which initially at least is also cheaper, and a balance is set up between capitalist and patriarchalinterests. This is the core of the 'dual system' approach (cf. McDowell and Massey, 1984; Walby, 1989) although others would prioritize patriarchy- or indeed capitalism (see the debate in Crompton and Mann, 1986). Finallythe other dimensions of patriarchysupport this settlement. Deviating wives may be physically attacked. (It appears that about 60 per cent of women experience domestic violence, where the predominant sources of conflict are sexual possessiveness, demands over labour services, and control over household finances, HMSO 1989. In addition 25 per cent are raped, mostly by husbands;Painter, 1991). State policies are often directed towards maintaining families with male 'head of households', for example through the benefit system, girls are socialised and educated towards women's work, monogamous heterosexuality in husband-wifehouseholds is maintainedas the norm (with double standardsfor men) and so on. Given that patriarchal gender relations are so important in determining social, economic and demographic characteristics,they are clearly of some importance in the creation of geographies. But if we follow Walby in stressing the interconnections

between her six dimensions of patriarchy there are further geographical implications. There will be variations in the form of each dimension, in the degree to which they are developed and in their relationship to another. And this variation will inevitably be spatial, as well as social and historical. (See Duncan, 1989, on the difference that space makes). This can happen in two ways. First patriarchal relations will operate in different contexts which will affect how they work. Geography will map out, for example, how patriarchal and capitalist structures actually relate on the ground. In some areas, like industrialLancashire, there will be a long tradition of full-time employment for women; in others, classically in coal mining areasof Britain,there is an equally long tradition of full-time domestic labour for women. These different regional contexts, produced in part by spatial divisions of capitalist labour, influencehow patriarchal social systems work including the differentialdevelopment and mix of Walby's six dimensions. This process is of course well established on an international scale. In non-Islamic west Africa, for instance, the penetration of capitalist markets increases patriarchalpower, which was relatively weakly developed in some economic spheres. Conversely, in IslamicAfricacapitalistmodemisation has increased women's paid employment in high status jobs, while in LatinAmerica it has encouraged their employment in low statusjobs (Scott, 1986). But there is no a priori reason why similar contextual differentiationshould not also occur on a sub-national scale and this is what the previous description of the geography of gender roles in Britainsuggests. Secondly, however, social systems do not only operate in spatially organised contexts; they themselves have geographies. They may have boundaries and will be unevenly developed, so that the strength, pervasiveness and natureof social systems will not be the same in different places (Duncan and Savage, 1989). Patriarchalsystems are no exception - they may in themselves work differently in different places. In west inner London, for example, about half of working women were in full-time paid work in 1981 - many in high status occupations, only about a third were full-time housewives, less than half of households contained a married couple and 20 per cent or so of employed women lived alone.3Does all this mean that in this areapartiarchal relationswork in a differentway to elsewhere in Britain? Not only do women living in west inner London have higher rates of full-time working, and a greater

434

SIMON DUNCAN

likelihood of having high status jobs but, not surprisingly, average wage levels for women working fulltime in this area are also higher than in the rest of London and about 25 per cent higher than the British average (Brentis an exception).4Give the high scores for non-conventional households and independent single women, in combination with these high levels of full-timeworking in relatively well paid and secure high status jobs, mortgage borrowing by women is also high. Women made up nearly 40 per cent of borrowers from the Nationwide Anglia in 1989 in this area (compared to just 20 per cent in 1978) with marriedmen reduced to something of a rump at just 25 per cent of borrowers. Borrowing by single men was also important in west inner London - but indicatively single men tended to borrow for purchase throughout London while single women were much more concentrated in this area. Rates for married women were low everywhere in London (as in Britainas a whole). Finally, and equally indicative of relations vis-a-vis men, women's rates of fulltime working reached 60 per cent of male levels in west inner London compared to less than 40 per cent in suburban London and around 30 per cent nationally. This materialsuggests that the life cycle is strongly gendered as well as being strongly geographical. Men and women pass through various life cycle stages, and typically these stages take place in different sorts of place (young single adults in inner-cities, couples with children in suburbs,etc). But what men and women actually do in these life-cycles stages can be quite different (to follow up this traditionalmodel, the suburban couple consist of 'breadwinning'male and 'homemaking'female). Similarly,changes to this life cycle pattern will usually mean spatial changes, for example women in full-time work who do not cohabit with a man will be much more likely to live in certain 'inner-city'areas. We have already seen that household 'conventionality' is much lower than elsewhere in west inner London. There is some scatteredinformationthat this 'unconventionality'may also extend to other areas of social behaviour including sexuality. Figure 6 maps the occurence of gay and lesbian social facilities by borough; the importance of west inner London is clear although this may also result from locational centrality within London. This area of London is also particularly important for women's socio-spatial mobility, as an examinationof the LongitudinalStudy (LS)census data shows. The LS follows a I per cent sample of census respondents from 1971-1981; most

usefully for this paper it therefore records the characteristicsof individualsratherthan areas. Analysis of LS data for London shows three major things. First,not surprisingly,it confirms the overall male breadwinner/female homemaker categories in terms of recruitmentand mobility. Once men become full-time paid workers they tend to stay in this role; over 95 per cent of men in this group in 1971 remained in 1981. On the other hand 50 per cent of full-time paid women in 1971 had left for part-time paid work or full-time domestic work by 1981. Conversely, once women are in part-time paid or domestic work they tend to stay there. Secondly, however, these patterns are less strong in west inner London than in the rest of London.Finally,west inner London plays a significant role as a 'port of entry' for recruitmentto full time jobs from other parts of Britain and abroad. This is of course a well-known role for London as a whole (Fielding, 1989). But the LSdata shows that this role and its spatial expression is strongly gender differentiated. In-migrating men tend to locate all over London - but for women in full-time paid work in-migration rates for west inner London are over double those for the rest of London. Conversely, in-migrants involved in part-time paid work or full-time domestic labour (nearly all women) mostly move to other areas of London (see Duncan, 1990; 1991, for furtherdetails). In other words, west inner London is particularlyimportant for allowing social mobility for women,not just to relatively high paid and high status full-time jobs, but also to relatively independent and unconventional life styles. It may well be that other areas in the large cities in the 'low conventionality' paid workergroup show similar patterns (cf. Winchester and White, 1988). This demands more detailed work. There is also evidence that women have more political influence in west inner London. Of the eleven constituent boroughs, eight have Women's Committees (Brenthas a sub-committee)- the three exceptions being Conservative controlled and hence almost by definition excluding these radical 'local feminist' initiatives. Even so, one of these, Wandsworth, has a fairly active equal opportunities programme (Halford and Duncan, 1992). These initiatives are charged with improving the position of women within the local authority itself, in the provision of local authority services and generally in the borough area. Although these committees have achieved mixed success, in some of these boroughs feminist groups have been highly influentialin local politics (Halford,

Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain

435

FIGURE6. Gay and Lesbian Social Facilities:Greater London 1991 Source:Gay Times,February 1991

1989). On the other hand, only five of the remaining committees can emerge. In some cases it was race 21 London boroughs have these initiatives (including which became the dominant equal opportunities issue two sub-committees). Some of these boroughs with- (Halford, 1991). out initiatives are Labourcontrolled, although most Similarly,the 'gender gap' in Britishvoting behavare run by the Conservative or Liberal Democrat iour has historically led to greater support for the parties. It appears that if feminist women are to have Conservative party by women (although this gap influence in local politics, there needs to be a particu- seems to be narrowing; Hart, 1989). There are, lar combination of local socio-economic and gender nonetheless, substantial variations by age and social relations producing relatively independent women, status and with young, middle-class women the conscious of themselves as a feminist and left wing gender gap favours the Labour party (Hewitt and group, who are able to insert themselves into the Mattinson 1988). Indeed in west inner London the local government political machinery at crucial Labourparty won thirteen seats in the 1987 general changeover points. The period when the 'new urban election which the Conservative party 'should' have left' took control in many Labourauthorities, conse- won using occupational class as a predictor of the quent to the decline of traditional, male workplace result. In the whole of the rest of south east England labour movements, provided this point and many of Labour made only ten more of these contra-class the local authorities in west inner London seem to gains, while much of working class east London and fit this model very well. We should stress, however, the eastern suburbsacted in the opposite direction. In that this is not the only way in which women's other words Labourdoes much better in west inner

436

SIMON DUNCAN

London than would be expected in class and geographical terms. On the evidence provided by Johnston et al (1988) - who in their otherwise exhaustive analysis neglect gender gaps completely - this relative success for Labour in west inner London and other similar high status inner metropolitan areas, especially in Manchester and Edinburgh, depended upon swings to them among professional,managerial and administrativegroups. And it is just these areas which are so important to women with full-timejobs living in 'independent'households. However, other indications of increasing gender equality in west inner London are not so sanguine. Women in full time paid jobs working in this areamay have high wages relative to other similar women in the rest of London and Britainas a whole. But compared to men working in this area wage differentials remain the same, with full-time paid women earning around 67 per cent of the average full-time male wage. Men also earn more in this area so gender differentials are maintained. And this of course excludes part-time work and full-time domestic work which even in this area accounts for about half of working women (compared to 70 per cent nationally). We also know that levels of male nondomestic violence towards women are high in this area, and that in this sense public places are 'policed' by men, although comparative information is not available.For all age groups, 74 per cent of women in Islington stay in their homes very or fairly often for fear of attack, compared to 40 per cent of men. Fully 27 per cent of women aged between 16-54 never go out alone at night and certain places, including some public transport, is nearly always avoided. (Second Islington Crime Survey, 1990). The Islington report concludes that 'It is not an exaggeration to conclude that many women in inner city areas live in a state of virtualcurfew'.Again, however, this curfew will vary between different sorts of places at different times (Valentine, 1989). Women may do better in west inner London as far as access to full-time work is concerned. The traditionalmale breadwinner/femalehomemakerrole and 'conventional' male dominated households may be increasingly uncommon. It may even be that women have obtained some independent political influence and that partiarchallifestyle norms are also breaking down. But unequal gender divisions of labour are still predominant and it may well be the case that other patriarchaldimensions of control like male violence in public places - can compensate for any weakening elsewhere.

Finally the differentdimensions of patriarchymay also operate at differentscales or even - in a stronger spatial sense - be constituted at different scales. For instance, household and neighbourhood scales may be more important for expectations about gender roles or the prevalence of male violence, while patriarchalbehaviour in paid work might be much more relevant to a labour market scale.5 That 'the differencethat space makes'in fact operates at various scales for various processes is logically most likely (see Duncan and Savage, 1991; Pratt, 1991); the discussion of west innerLondon above seems to support this and also dovetails with researchon labourmarket vis-a-vis neighbourhood influences on household behaviour (Morris, 1991). This discussion of how gender relations may operate differently in different places exposes the limitations of using aggregate data and ecological mapping to discover how social processes work. In the conclusion which follows I discuss what this paper has achieved and how furtherwork might proceed. CONCLUSIONS In this paper I have demonstrated two major points. First of all, gender divisions of labour are both marked and relatively fixed. Secondly, however, these divisions are differentiallydeveloped in different areas of Britain.These geographical variations in gender divisions of labour are associated with variations in household structure and 'conventionality'. In some areas such as west inner London new gender roles and cultures may be developing in contrast to the establishedmale breadwinner/femalehomemaker roles. There are also major limitations to the work presented here, as discussed in the second section. The paper concentrates on workplace labour categories and households as units;it can say little about internal household and workplace relationships, still less about male violence, sexuality, gender identity and all those other elements forming patriarchalsocial systems. Hence I can comment, if in a limited and aggregate way, on the geography of gender roles but can only speculate on the variations in gender relations that lie behind them. I would claim however that this paper can be heuristically useful in pointing to the significant variationsin the geography of gender roles as a starting point for further work. How might such work proceed? There are perhaps three major routes. First of all, despite the limitations discussed earlier, there

Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain

437

is still scope for re-using aggregate and statistical information which up to now has usually been interpreted in a gender blind fashion. Voting surveys are just one case in point. Secondly, there is a mass of historical material which is waiting to be reinterpreted, both original statistical material as well as published results. The 1950s/60s work on community and family structure is a good example (see Pahl, 1986). And finally, there is a need for in-depth research on households, workplaces and civil institutions. Social survey and ethnographic investigation can reveal much about how gender relations work in these situations, as many sociological studies have been shown (see Morris, 1988; Purcell, 1989). But there have been few attempts to make such work geographically sensitive. It might even be possible to extend this sort of study into less easy researchareas like male violence or sexuality. Certainly, however, work on the geography of gender roles and gender relations can hold one key to understandingwhy men and women experience life as they do in modem Britain.

2 Extreme homemaker DCs Blaneau Gwent,Caradon, Carmarthen, CynonValley, Ceredigion,

Dinefwr, Dwyfor, Kerrier, Llanelli, Meronnydd, N. Corwall, Penwith, Preseli, Restormel, Rhondda, Rhuddlan, Ross and Cromarty, Skye and Lochalsh, S. Pembroke, S. Wight, W. Isles, Ynys Mon.

3 Extreme part-time DCs

Adur, Babergh, Berwick on Tweed, Beverley, Broadland, Bromsgrove, Chichester, Chiltern, Cleethorpes, Cotswold, Great Grimsby, Hove, Kennett, Kingswood, Medina, Mid-Suffolk, N. Dorset, Oswestry, Rother, Ryedale, St Edmondsbury, Scunthorpe, S. Cambridgeshire, S. Norfolk, Tendring, Waverley, Wealdan, Woodspring, York.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First thanks must go to Mark Baigent, Jane Eyles, Kevin Fielding, Sue Justice and Richard Johnson for help in collecting statistical information. Thanks also to Susan Halford and Susan Mackenzie for comments on an earlier draft and to Liz Bondi, Sylvia Chant and Sylvia Walby for support and encouragement. Mathew Gandy kindly provided the material for Figure 6. NOTES

1. Also Research Fellow, Centre for Urban and Regional Research, University of Sussex, Brighton BNl 9QN. 1. Paidworker DCs 2. The Labour Force Survey provides some interesting 1.1 High socialstatus,low conventionality materialwhich supports this conclusion. Only 1 per cent of all 'economically inactive' men in 1988 replied that Bamet, Brent, Camden, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, this was because they were 'looking after the family/ Haringey, Hounslow, Kennington and Chelsea, Kingston, house' compared to 44 per cent of marriedwomen and Islington, Lambeth, Merton, Oxford, Richmond, Wandsworth, 10 per cent of single women. Westminster 3. West inner London is defined here as the boroughs of Brent, Camden, Ealing, Hackney, Hammersmith and 1.2 Lowsocialstatus,low conventionality Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Wandsworth, and Westminster (see Duncan, Aberdeen, Dundee,Edinburgh, Greenwich, Hackney, Birmingham, 1990; 1991). Leicester, Lewisham, Manchester, Newham,Pendle,Southwark, 4. Unfortunately the New Earnings Survey from which Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest this data is taken is based on place of work rather than residence as in the census. 1.3 High socialstatus,high conventionality 5. Thanks to an anonymous referee for this point. Bromley, Enfield,Harrow, Hillingdon, Basingstoke,Bracknell, Redbridge,Runnymede,S. Bedfordshire, Spelthome, Sutton, REFERENCES ACKERS,J. (1989) 'The problem with patriarchy',Sociology 23: 235-40 ASHFORD, S. (1987) 'Family Matters', in JOWELL, R., WITHERSPOON, S., BROOK, L. (eds) British Social Attitudes: the 1987 Report (Social and Community Planning Research, Gower, Aldershot) BAGGULEY,P. and WALBY, S. (1989) 'Gender restructuring: a comparative analysis of five local labour markets', Environ.Plann.D: Soc. Space7: 277-92

APPENDIX- DISTRICT COUNCIL CATEGORIES

Walford, Windsor and Maidenhead

1.4 Lowsocialstatus,high conventionality

Barking, Bexley, Blackbur, Bolton, Bumley, Bury, Chorley, Clydebank, Corby, Coventry, Crawley, Cumbemauld and Kilsyth, E.Kilbride,Harlow, Hinkley and Basworth, Hyndbum, Inverness, Luton, Milton Keynes, Oldham, Preston, Redditch, Renfrew, Rossendale, Salford, Slough, Staffordshire/Moorlands, Stevenage, Stoke on Trent, Strathkelvin, Tameside, West Lothian

438

SIMON DUNCAN HALFORD, S. (1991) 'Localpolitics, feminism and the local state: women's initiatives in British local government in the 1980s', unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sussex, Brighton HALFORD, S. and DUNCAN, S. S. (1992) 'Implementing feminist policies in British local government', Policyand Politics(forthcoming) HART, N. (1989) 'Gender and the rise and fall of class politics', New LeftRev. 175: 19-47 HEWITT, P. and MATTINSON, 0. (1988) 'Women's votes: the key to winning', FabianRes.Ser.353 HMSO, (1989) Domestic violence: An Overview of the Literature (HMSO, London) HODGSON, M. (1984) 'Women living in London', StatisticalSer.34 (GreaterLondon Council, London) HURSTFIELD, J. (1980) 'Part-time pittance', Low Pay Review 1. JOHNSTON, R. J., PATTIE, C. J. and ALLSOPP, J. G. (1988) A Nation Dividing? The ElectoralMap of Great Britain1979-87 (Longman,London) LAITE, J. and HALFPENNY, P. (1987) 'Employment, unemployment and the domestic division of labour', in FRYER, D. and ULLAH, P. (eds) UnemployedPeople (Open University Press, Milton Keynes) pp. 217-40 LAND, H. (1976) 'Women: supporters or supported', in BARKER,D and ALLEN, S. (eds) Sexual Divisions and Society: Process and Change (Tavistock, London) pp. 108-32 LITTLE, (1987) 'Genderrelations in ruralareas:the importJ. ance of women's domestic role',J.of RuralStud.3:335-42 McDOWELL, L. and MASSEY, D. (1984) 'A woman's place?', in MASSEY, D. ALLEN, J. (eds) Geography Matters! (Open University Press, Milton Keynes) pp. 128-47 MANSFIELD,P. and COLLARD, M. (1989) The Beginning (MacMillan, London) of the Restof YourLife? MARK-LAWSON, J., SAVAGE, M. and WARDE, A. (1985) 'Gender and local politics: struggles over welfare policies 1918-1939', in MURGATROYD, L.,SAVAGE, M., SHAPIRO, D., URRY,J.,WALBY,S. and WARD, A. (eds) Locality, class and gender (Pion, London) pp. 195-215 MARK-LAWSON, J. (1988) 'Occupational segregation and women's politics', in WALBY, S. (ed) GenderSegregation at Work (Open University Press, Milton Keynes) pp. 157-73 MARTIN, J. and ROBERTS,C. (1984) Womenand employment:a lifetimeperspective (HMSO, London) MASSEY, D. (1984) Spatial divisions of labour: social structuresand the geography of production(Macmillan, London) MILLAR,J. (1987) 'Lone Mothers', in GLENDINNING, C. and MILLAR, J. (eds) Women and Poverty in Britain (Wheatsheaf, Brighton) pp. 161-292 MORRIS, L. (1988) 'Employment,the household and social networks', in GALLIE, D. (ed) Employmentin Britain (Blackwell,Oxford) pp. 376-405

BRANNEN, J. and WILSON, G. (eds) (1987) Give and Take in Families(Unwin and Hyman, London) W. and BEVERIDGE, (1942) SocialInsurance Allied Services, The Beveridge Report Cmnd. 6404 (HMSO, London) BEVERIDGE, W. (1947) Voluntary Action (Allen and Unwin, London) BOWLBY,S., FOORD, J.,McDOWELL,L. (1986) 'Forlove not money: gender relations in local areas' (Centre for Urban and Regional Development Discussion Paper No. 76, University of Newcastle) BOWLBY,S. (1990) 'Women, work and the family: control 75: and constraints', Geography 17-26 CENTRE FOR CRIMINOLOGY (1990) Second Islington Crime Survey (Middlesex Polytechnic, Enfield, Middlesex) COHEN, B. (1990) Caring for Children.The 1990 Report (FamilyPolicy Studies Centre, London) CROOKE,P. (1989) Localities (Unwin and Hyman, London) and CROMPTON, R., and MANN, M. (eds) (1986) Gender Stratification (Polity Press, Cambridge) DEEM, R. (1986) All Work and No Play: The Sociologyof Women and Leisure (Open University Press, Milton Keynes) DELPHY, C. (1976) 'Continuities and discontinuities in marriage and divorce', in BARKER,D. and ALLEN, S. (eds), Sexual Divisions and Society: Processand Change (Tavistock, London) pp. 90-107 DUNCAN, S. S. (1989) 'Uneven development and the 20: difference that space makes', Geoforum 131-40 DUNCAN, S. S. (1990) 'Gender divisions of labour in London' (Centre for Urban and Regional Research Working Paper No. 73, University of Sussex, Brighton) DUNCAN, S. S. (1991) 'Gender divisions of labour', in GREEN, D. and HOGGART, K. (eds) London:A New Metropolitan Geography (Unwin Hyman, London) pp. 95-122 DUNCAN, S. S. and SAVAGE, M. (1989) 'Space, scale and locality', Antipode31: 179-206 DUNCAN, S. S. and SAVAGE,M. (1991) 'New perspectives on the locality debate', Environ.Plann.A 23: 155-64 FIELDING, A. (1989) 'Migration and social change: a study of South East England based upon data from the longitudinal study', Trans.Inst. Br. Geogr.14: 24-36 FINCH, J. (1983) Married to the Job (Allen and Unwin, London) FRANKLIN, A. (1989) 'Women in the home and the home in neighbourhood', unpubl. conf. paper, School for Advanced Urban Studies, Univ. of Bristol and the divisionof GERSHUNNY, J. (1983) Socialinnovation labour(Oxford University Press, Oxford) GITTINS, D. (1982) Fair Sex: family size and structure 1900-1939 (Hutchinson, London) GLENDINNING, C. and MILLER,J. (1987) Women and Povertyin Britain(Wheatsheaf, Brighton) HALFORD, S. (1989) 'Spatial divisions and women's initiatives in British local government', Geoforum20: 161-74

Thegeographyof genderdivisionsof labourin Britain MORRIS, L. (1989) 'Household strategies: the individual, the collectivity and the labourmarket:the case of married and couples', Wk, Employment Soc. 3: 447-64 MORRIS, L. (1991) 'Locality studies and the household', Environ.Plann.A, 23: 165-77 MOSS, P. (1988) Childcareand Equality of Opportunity (EuropeanCommission ChildcareNetwork, Commission to the EuropeanCommunity, Brussels) MUNRO, M. and SMITH, S. (1989) 'Gender and housing: broadening the debate', HousingStud.4: 3-17 OAKLEY,A. (1974) Housewife(Allen Lane, London) OPCS (1990) Monitor SS 90/3 (HMSO, London) GreatBritain.GEN 81 OPCS (1981) Census1981. Definitions DEF (HMSO, London) PAHL, R. E. (1986) Divisionsof Labour (Blackwell,Oxford) PAHL, J. (1989) Money and Marriage(Macmillan,London) PAINTER, K. (1991) Wife Rape, Marriage and the Law (Manchester University, Manchester) PATEMAN, C. (1989) The Sexual Contract (Polity, Cambridge) PIACHAUD, D. (1989) Round about Fifty Hours a Week (Child Poverty Action Group, London) PICKUP, L. (1988) 'Hard to get around: a study of women's travel mobility', in LITTLE, PEAKE,L. and J., RICHARDSON P. (eds) Women in Cities (Macmillan, London) pp. 98-116 Plann.A PRATT, A. (1991) 'Discourses of locality', Environ. 23:257-66 PURCELL,K. (1989) 'Gender and the experience of employment', in GAILLIE,D. (ed) Employmentin Britain (Blackwell,Oxford) pp. 157-86 ROBINSON, 0. and WALLACE, J. (1984) 'Growth and utilisation of part-time labour in Great Britain',Employment Gaz. 92: 391-7 ROGERS, B. (1988) Men Only: An Investigationof Men's (Pandora,London) Organisations SAYER, A. (1985) 'Industry and space: a sympathetic PlannD: Soc.Space7: critiqueof radicalresearch',Environ: 253-76

439

SCOTT, A. M. (1986) 'Industrialisation,gender segregation and stratification theory', in CROMPTON R. and MANN, M. (eds) Gender and Stratification (Polity, Cambridge)pp. 154-189 SEXTY,C. (1990) Women Losing Out: Access to Housing in BritainToday(Shelter, London) TOWNSEND, A. (1986) 'Spatial aspects of the growth of part-time employment in Britain', Regional Studies 20: 313-30 VALENTINE,G. (1989) 'The geography of women's fear', Area 21: 385-90 WALBY, S. (1985) 'Spatial and historical variations in women's employment and unemployment', in MURGATROYD, L., SAVAGE, M., SHAPIRO, D., URRY, J., WALBY, S. and WARDE, A. (eds) Locality, classandgender(Pion, London) pp. 61-176 WALBY, S. (1986) Patriarchyat Work: Patriarchaland (Polity, Cambridge) CapitalistRelationsin Employment WALBY, S. (1989) 'Theorising patriarchy', Sociology 23: 213-34 WALBY, S. and BAGGULEY,P. (1990) 'Sex segregation in local labour markets',Wk, Employment Soc. 4: 59-81 and WARING, M. (1989) If Women Counted:A New Feminist Economics (Macmillan,London.) WHEELOCK, J. (1990) 'Capital restructuring and the domestic economy: family, self-respect and the irrelevance of "rationaleconomic man" ', Capitaland Class. 41: 103-42 WINCHESTERH. and WHITE, P. (1988) 'The location of Plann.D: marginalised groups in the inner-city', Environ. Soc. Space6: 37-54 WITHERSPOON, S. (1985) 'Sex roles and gender issues', in R., JOWELL, WITHERSPOON, S. and BROOK, L. (eds) British Social Attitudes: The 1985 Report (Social and Community Planning Research, Gower, Aldershot) WITHERSPOON, S. (1988) 'A woman's work', in JOWELL, R., WITHERSPOON, S. and BROOK, L. (eds) British Social Attitudes: 1988 Report (Social and Community Planning Research,Gower, Aldershot) ZWEIG,F. (1952) TheBritishWorker(Penguin, London)