ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 A Feminist,Historical Investigation of the Meaning of Household Technology in Women's Lives

Eva M . Hyat, Appalachian State University [to cite]:

Eva M . Hyat (1998) ,"A Feminist,Historical Investigation of the Meaning of Household Technology in Women's Lives", in GCB

- Gender and Consumer Behavior Volume 4, eds. Eileen Fischer, San Francisco, CA : Association for Consumer Research,

Pages: 109 to 118.

[url]:

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/15634/gender/v04/GCB-04

[copyright notice]:

This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in

part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.

A Feminist, Historical Investigation of the Meaning of

Household Technology in Women's Lives

Eva M. Hyatt, Appalachian State Univenity

INTRODUCTION

whether a married woman is a full+ime housewife or she works outside the home' she

spends a mnsiderabi""u*Lunr"rti." o"ing t ous"worr. Marketers offer women and their

families all sorts t t""0"*, ttyii.t O.uiceito help make.such work faster and easier'

Studies show that d;;tb;#tipiA in.t*te of women in the worldorce' men have not

substantially incr""r*f,1-tt# ttrui" of responsibiliry or duties in the maintenance of the

household lOropesaleg:). There *" .iitt titone eff""ts of traditional gender role

srereor.ypes on *toi'##n"i*o"tO tti" ttout""(W*" lTql. That is,-the definitions of

ii"rp.,iiiuiiiryi"ro"m"stic chores are gendered. 'wo-"n

in dual career households are

expenencrng ume #;;;;gt;"onrtruifrtsin t.ying to fulfill work and family expectations,

leading ro a further i;;r*di" the marketing of iiiproved household technology'

Housework can be defined as "the work involved in the. care or management of domestic

concerns, such as #ir;;;rk, r*""pini, ;;J ffi bbing" (W?bstqi$ llge leqInternational Diction"fr-1-gll,p. togei, or'iri.*itrvely as""rEromestic service of wife to

husband. chitdren, ffi;;;'Jitht;-tfi" il;ls 1ve5.ry Public) realm of society"

(Kramarae ano rreilir-i iiiggz,p.rgel. fire,"r"no defiirition supplies the actor primarily

responsible ro, *,i""*oil, ;dJti;.g;r"-ur" 6*a of household" in order to accomplish

domestic work (as *"u-ar industriaized market labor), tools must be employed'

Household toots nave always been an eisential pan of housework' and have become

increasingly *oo"*li,'Ji"ay ii-gJas become increasinsrv industrialized (cowan

1983). In f act, many househitd upptiunJt-ili" J"Ugp"3 frrit for commercial use and

then adapted ro the t;;. -i'li" "ift.fi"itf household iabor is achieved through the

mechanization of work processes once;:tf;;Jby hlnd, mainly c]eaning.operations"

(Giedion tglF-,p. 512).- The onginal.pl,tP";;;f iniroducin.g.tu"l devices rnto-housework

was to elimrnate t;;A d;dg;ti, figfitetittre workload, andthereby create more efficient

housewives"

on the surface this sounds good for women responsible.forensuring that the household is

maintained p.op"rry."i;?;A th" p"pufui "i"* bf household applianles today is that they

are time and labor slurng O"ui.", ifdt uttimatety.m{<e tip ptfei for women' These

assumptions are rnvestigate{ by gking ;c:lee# lg9\ 3t the histoncal role that increased

household technology tias ptayeO in i*"nl"daily lives, thus uncovering the underlying

symbolic *"*,ngr-df noulen'otO.appliancei -Jifl" paradoxes th._y ry:::1J?: women' It

is important to t*k ui *o*"n', Oiitinctive expe1teni".1n consumer iesearch in order to

bener understand ;;i;;;;d ."uningt of pioduca (Bristor and Fischer 1993)'

109

PRODUCT SYMBOUSM

It is an established notion in consumer research that the products people acquire andconsume are imbued with meaning above and beyond theirfunctional uses. The essence ofthe poduct becomes not the object icelf and its physicat functioning, but the relationbenpeen the object and consutner, so that the mabrial world of products becomestransformed into a symbolic world of ideological meanings. Meaning is an individrral'sperception or interpretation of an object, andis not inherent in the object itself. One'sperception of a1 gbject_consists of two dimensions: an interpretation of its attributes and aninterpretation of its performance potential. These nro dimeirsions vary in importancearygllg gbjegts an$ among individuals, and vary as well according to ihe coniex(s) inwhich the object is perceived (Kleine and lGrnan 1991).

All symbols find.their meary_ng through social agreement based on arbitrary codes of rulesrepresenting particular worldviews developed by some culnral syst€m (Mick 1!)86). Moreprecisely, therc is a three;11ry interaction between marketers, consumers, and the productsthemselves (Gottdiener 1!)85). Marketers give a product an exchange value, accorirpaniedby symbolicpromotional meanings; then consumers imbue the prod'uct with a use v'alue,accompaniedby symbolic meanings_derived from the effect of ihe prnduct's use in socialinteractions; then marketers use this feedback in furtherpromotional campaigns andimprovement of the product in order to broaden the sociil acceptance and us6 of theproduct. Advertisem create new meanings 9y inventing new connections between productsand benefits, so that over time the true rciatiilnship betrpeen the symbol and reality-can nolonger be discerned, and the symbols with their "fiificial" associations take on lives oftheir own (Solomon 1996, p.8l). The product itself can also have an effect on the socialinteraction process,.such as aiding people in more effective role definition and helping toplace them in social networks (Solomon 19{33).

For example, in early posl-industrial society (late 1800's in the United States) the specificrole of housewife was unfamiliar to most women, who had up until this time participated ina more cooperative Process of household production" In ordei to bring more meanirig to thehousewife role and tomore clgarly define-the role requirements, housiwives adopted'toolsand practicesdesigned by mq_keters to help them moie effectively create a haven from theoutside world that kept-up with the ever-changing middle class standard of living. Culturaltransformations of foodstuffs into meals and li"ouie into home became more elafirate in

, order to,loxvey the rising status of the middle class. The home itself was a reflection of thehousewife's character, as well as being the onty domain in which she could express herself(Smith 1989). The central role that household dppliances have played and coniiinue to playin women's day-1o-day lives, as evidenced FV tm amount of tiine, energy, and moneyinvested into such tools, has produced a rich, yet contradictory, net*o#'of symUotiiassociations within the overall societal framework. Because of itre changing riature ofItg*"|,"t{ technology a{rl the socio-political conrext in which it was OeielSpea,*rehistorical. background of housework

-and its differential effects on men and women warranr

a deeper investigation in order to fully understand the symbolism behind household tools.

TI# CONFU CTING MEA NI NGS OF HOUSEHOLD TECHNOLOCY

By.examinile ttrg surface meanings historically associated with the introduction of moderntechnology into the domestic realm, and compiring this with the real-world effcts thatsuch devices have had on-women's daily lives, seviral contrasting themes emerge thatserve to illuminate the underlying proddct symbolism characterizi"ng household ippliances.

1 1 0

Ease vs. Devaluation

With the separation of the public and private spheres thatcatne with indusfialization'

housework-was definJ-# *om"n', *or[in[ *Ltl_."pia" the home as men's work. If

the family could five on A" tt*UuoO't *ug"t, th" .Yif" dig-t:t trsually engage in market

labor, and there *;;;;J-pr*t *t ,*froi for this arrangement. "Despite job

segregation, the woffi;;';;ftt" " t"it"ffi*.gtOgi* Taunts and roughhousing

around factories could qreate a oonstantly unpl6asant'-wen grngerous.atnrosPlerc for

women. (Smith 1989, p.278). enott*r'6.ffi;[i.bf did tlot want womEn to work

outside theh6meis thaf women would p*uia"att t'fuCitional soury of cgSnne{tionforthe

men. "Victoriso at$empfis to get women iot ii tttg factories and milts aad into the home

were rnotivated largely by the anxiety nfnotu ottgryo*u sinndon had been ndically

rransformed by the change to f-acloW proiiiiiiion' igat *y !W4'Wl'1112-lly' men

needed someone to tal* care o! *re cfrif&in-anJtoprw!{e domeitic suPPortin order fon

them roreayetr*hffiffiriioru, ffr,il6aool-*nita affsd it, theirwives did notworkoutside the home.

This middle- and upper-class qocl4 c$tory was justifid not by the foregoing practical

arguments, but instelrl tt th;1;iu".ao"ttin" &"t pt-rc spheies' This doctrine was based

;""ffi ilbi'.il};iltrf ri;;"br*";;ilt"'*io.'women'sreproductivephysiologvwasused lo esrabli$h the notion that ryonlen il;-ffititeA for;'trVsicatJV demanding work and

were insread n"rumfti;i;uF; r* iiid "*riii{ing rt**of rnbttrernina and domesticitv.According ro rhis pbilosophy, yotlgng.;ufiOi &e hqme was unwomanly and would lead

ro neslect of the famii' ttrisdoctrintftteTftoox in ne Rornantic notion of rcptblican

morh;rhood rro* til" ffii"800';,;hi;,h iffira * ihe effects of women's vifiue on the

srats {smirh lme)."i;;-iff"-h;- i;;i,li6f ili*6;6 Jphett* philosophv bv 1850 was to

make housekeeping th" *Giu" Oo*uin Jtitutiita wsinen, such that any workperformed UV ro*"iliutsiri; ild;gruiditlg-ctrgtV,yas seen as conflicting with not

bnlv the healrh of the home but also *id;l; h"d;h of thi srate. This effect was enhanced

;y Jdf#';;#J,ffiirr;rkd* th"r;;; *om"n rrom certain tvpes of jobsand bv the

higher $rarus a*"ru"O io f,man whose *ifi Oia nJi ryo* o!{tsrde thi home' So by 191Ionlv one in ten married women *ottd oit-idt;th" home (Oakley ln4)' Of course' the

;tilil1##;ffi;t"yJ*.if""e;ust *o*"n was not an important issue:it was never a

diserace for a lower-class woman to huu" a job. However, thes6 women were still affected

uv ihe doctrine of separate spheres thd;h it;g" ang emptoyment discrimination' since

tfi"iii"Uor *as se"n'as secoriOary to that of their male counterparts'

Since women were not seen to be suited fbr hard manual labOr, aecording-O thedoetrine of*.. .^ ".."nr nr if thev were idle and leisurely in;;fril"'-ffil;, ti l,;-;;;*rA ror-oii.n o iipr* * i,f.thev were iille and leisurelv in

the home. servang in the more wen-oirJrt."*ii.itor, qf ratei socalled "time-saving"

lffiffi Il, iil'#ru iil #i;i i,i,[*i"l* (s,t'tl lry:r;1:*H ?:ffi,Hllil?fr iili;J'#H'#H'ffi ;"il,8I'Gj,."ii-i;FE*-lryig?3;g::manuar;iffi#'8;ffiffi ffi"'(d;6;-l-rar'n j1o2:,?TlvgTf :e'g?gi?lgg+ilfril#"ir"dffi;". h"ry -ryv lrousew{* *uq19 be, showing emitiry ySlyteffonlessly maniputrating *r aJoices, wiih co'py ti.{"..:ltu1n4"IogaveiEtipl'-l*l *deifodessly manipulating the devices, with copy lt:[:.*t'lannes Io savc yuu r'uE' I

;;;ti;;"Fi:;*ri' fi!*iri*"ry"t"1* of stoolii"ng!" :\"^91|{=ti1s,*;t-u"pJ3s5,T,ffij:# "r;:f i;ffi;ffi'dl;'ffi;i; ti'{'iftpr', economical syclgn.gweeper and besnveri *r* b"ot-tredJns*i"il;f;6;g il* oU-rasUione6 way?" (Giedion 1948,saved the back-brcaking of sweeping tltep.se3).

1 1 1

Another w-ay that-housework was made to seem light and ladylike was to require that thewoman exhibit a feminine appearance. Clothing was used to exaggerale theiemininity ofthe housewife. Women in ads for new appliances were immaculat-ly dressd without a hairout of pla9e. Copets were used to emphasize women's hips and breasts (body partsassociated with fertility), which in reafity created much dis'comfort and inionvenience forwomen and interfered with their ability to do housework effectively. Women wereexhorted !o clpng-e clothes numerous times throughout the day in order to exhibit freshnessand newness for their husbands (Beeton 1861). In the 1930'd long, enameled fingernailsbecame the fashion for women, so as to make every gesture appear dainty, and evldence ofstryrylg "f!g.t, such.as sw^eating, a clenched jaw, and gruntiir!, were dilcouraged asunladylike (Brownmiller 19U4). Modern household appliances-were promoted-as allowing:vomen to exhibit proper feminine decorum and appearance while still-maintaining thehome.

However, as long-as women's work in the home was camouflaged so that they looked likethey did not actually work, their labor could be trivialized and devalued. The illusion ofease brought on by the mechanization of household labor has contributed to housework notb"ilg 1alue.{ as real.work. -Housekeeping is seen by society as easy work that anyonecould do with very little effort. Statements like, "Just throw the laundrv in the machine andtum it on!" fail to acknowledge all the manual processes involved in wishing clothes, suchas carrying, lifting, folding, ironing, and hanging. Beeton's (lg6l) housew6rk manualoutlines the vast number of daily duties, skilli and-responsibilities required of the proper"mistress." The first chapter goes through a typical day in the life of a housewife, irorirrising (6 AM,) toretiring, e-numerating sixty-onb recommendations for proper performanceof the role. She includes thirty-eight chapters on the techniques of cooning albne. Thisindicates that the standards and requirements imposed on women for runniirg the householdwere greatly.increased from pre-industrial times. That is, as the perception of houseworkbecame that it was easier, the number of chores that women became responsible forincreased. The claim that domestic work-was leisurely and more suited ior the dainryfemale constitution than was "real work" was in direct contrast with the realitv of wbmen'shectic, burdensome schedules filled up with endless tasks.

Independencr vs. Greater Dependency

The introduction of mechanized technology into the household was promoted as leading to"Sj!{er jldependence, that is, to the enfranchisement of the housewife" (Giedion 194{p.512). However, with the advent of modern tools also came a drastic reduction in theamount of help women received from children and husbands. Tasks that previously hadbeen shared by members of the whole household in a cooperative fashion were alloned nthe housewife's list of chores, as children went off to school and husband went off towork. This trend was-accompanied by a continual increase in the elaborateness of food,home decor, and clothing standards ihposed by society on women (Cowan iggjt.

The tasks perfolmed by women in the home are inextricably linked to one another:preparing a meal requires shopping for groceries, planning'ana cooking, maintenance ofenergy source and cooking appliance, coordinatioir with clildren's and'husband's tastesand schedules, cleaning, anddisposal of waste. New tools introduced into theperform3nce of this task can change the whole process and cause a shift in therefPonsibilitrel 9f those involvedlCowan l98j). For example, a new food processorreleases the children from theirvegetable chopping duties, or u g* stove releases thehusband from his wood procurement duties. iri fait, the main eifect of the introduction of

r12

mosr new household appliances was to eliminate most of the helping.duties of t* children

*,a "*rryai or tr,or"'.ifG husband and to make women exclusiv-ly responsible for the

oerformance "f *f, turt, wfrictr would often be done by the woman in isolation. And

ih;;;;;; tuts required cleaning, a labor-intensive ask almostexclusive to women

ib;** 198). oftr"i pr"a""teiimptes exhibiting this pattern include vacuum cleaners'ilLtr, * incieased nri1nU"r of food^preparation and serving utensils, and washingmachines.

Women's increased reliance on tools to be able to independgntly perform household tasks

""t""-fiy ;;t'ltGd io gr*t"t dependence and alienatibn of the housewife. As toolsG**6 more compf"ii*"rn"n linew less about how the tools of their labor worked

aa;; fqgl. Ufft"n ttr"r" new apptiances broke down, women depended.on r.ePairmenio understand and fix them. Most ivomen also depended solely on their husbands to Payfor such appliances and services.

Even today with more thanffiVoof women with children under 18 and more than TOVo of*o*"n without children working outside the home, women are overwhelminglyresoonsible for the housework: i-n837o of manied couples women do most of the cooking,i;-|iE;;;^en do the grocery shopping, and i1 76Vo women do the dishes' Womenlft"ugtrt thar if they shaied in itre reiinnliUitrty for earning a.living, men wottld particlPalemore in household responsibilities,'but this his not geneially been the case (Farhi 199/+).

Time Savings vs. Heightened Standards

The housework that women perform is affected by and ?flott the work that men do'

i-rrrr"for., men have u u"rt"d interest in how houiework is performed by,women in all of

ttr *p".tt, so that throughout history men have been involved in its so-calledimprivement. Attempts?" lnnlV Freilerick Taylor's principles of scientific management to

lnJp.ruut" sphere uii*Jtttlr'nirn of the centriry, klow.n.as "household engineering,","pi"r"nt ruih "n efforr This involved re-viewing the old established w-o1k processes ando.b".ing them in u .oi" rational way. The focuJwas on the amount of time wasted !y ttt";tti""l fi&r"*if". One woman whose dishwashing w.as analyzed stated, "For

Yearlf_ _n"u"r realized that I actually made 80 wrong motions-in thf^ry$hilq 4o19 not.countrngothers in the sorting, *ipin!, and laying a*iy" (Giedion 1948,-p.521)' Men.attempt'ed to"r*i" organized *5it< ul"uJand suriacis and e-sthglcally ppealing ngw appliances in orderto elimin"ate wasted movements (Giedion 1943). Women'i work environments then werealtered for these pu.por"r so thaiwomen could be even more efficient. The-implication isthat women n""d m6n to tell them how to do even work that is supposed to be particularlysuited for women, and that women's natural efforts are not good enough: they need men'stools and advice to be good housekeepers'

Bringing the "science of efficiency" into the home, however, also resulted in greater;ip6[12fids and higher standardiregarding housework,.much as it did in the workplace.By eliminating was6d movements aid creiting more efficient tools, one would expect lessarirounts of tifre spent by women in the performalce of housekeeping duties. ,Howeyer, _the bottom line wis thatihe time women spent in housework was not reduced by.equtpptngtheir homes with the latest technology (Robinson 19{30) An illustrative example isdoingihe launOry, which has been affected'gieatly by technological.change and increasedorganizatian of the work space. "A lirge v-ani:ty of soaps and detergents and automaticuplliun""r have come on tire scene, and"the once burdensome requirement of ironing hastln greatly reduced by wash-and-wear fabrics. Nonetheless, the amount of time spent

1 1 3

r{t

9gt$ the laundry.increased (from 5 1/2 hours per week in 1925 to 6 L/2 hours per week in1%8). Presumably peoplg have more clothes now than they did in the past and they washthem more often" (Vanek lY74).

Economy vs. Consumer Debt

In pre-industrial society women's work in the home was valued for its economiccontributions, even if the products were not sold for money. With the separation of theworkplace from the home, housework lost its economic value, and only work that earnedwages was considered economic activity (Flareven ln6} Houseworkkame anessentially consumption-oriented activity, and women's status fell when they becameconsumers rather than producers (Gordon and McArthur 1%t.

The-shift from pre-industrial production activities, such as growing produce and weavingglotft, to post-indusllal consumption activities, such as pur-hasing Sread from the bakeiorbuying a new-utensil to assist in housework, resulted in significanl changes in the dailychores of the housewife. By the 1880's domestic consumption had become the norm iormost American households. However, women's consumption behavior was severelvrestricted by their husbands (Gordon and McArthur 1985). In order to maintain the fiome,women had to become consumers in the marketplace, but most depended solely on theirhusbands tg Sive them money for such purchases, at least until women began io enter thel3bol fqrce in larger numbers. _Many husbands routinely expected their wives to keepdetailed accounts of all expenditures, supply usage, and activities. Housewives wereexpected to be fnrgal and careful in the purchase, preparation, and usage of atl goodspurchased for the running of the house (Gordon and McArthur 1985). Housewives, in aneffort to economize and gain the advantages offered by new mechanical devices, gothooked into pay-as-you-go credit plans, which led to even further dependence onmanufacturers (Giedion 1948). Easy credit terms were offered to enable families to investin the latest and most economical household appliances. Also, as more household choresbecame mechanized,.elqrgy consumplion (mostly in the form of electricity, gas, and oil)increased, leading to higher utility bills lCowan i9Bg).

Oftentimes the functional utility and economic value of appliances were not the primereasons for purchasing newer and better ones. Instead, thb home became a showcase forthe woman's personality 1nd talent, and the focus was on style and decor (Smith 1989).Irrational motivations such as keepjng up with the latest col6rs, fashions, and technology,as well as the Joneses, were often the prihe movers in deciding to invest in better toolsl-With rapidly changing technology, many appliances became obsolete in just a few years.Ironically, theincrease in consumer debi inpost-War America, largely dire to the purchaseof household durables, was one of the main-factors contributing to-th6 need for women towork outside the home, which ended up increasing their overali workload (Andre 1981).Mothers workilS fulltime outside the home experi6nce the greatest constraints on their time(Dawson and Harringron 1995)

Freedom vs. Greater Confinement

Having the right tools for the job can greatly improve the performance of any task, andthereby free-uptime and energy for oiher, mord enjoyablb, things. Howevei tools alsoserve to set limis on as well as.organize the tasks foiwhich the! are designed. Theapplication of male-defined.technological and organizational priirciples to-houseworkresulted in women being relegated torational, ofrerly confinis witir set standards and

t14

duties. The amount of leisure time between tasks and socializing during tasks was $eatlyreduced for the modern homemaker'

The division of spa.ce in the home also carried with it symbolic meaning' In pre-industrial

homes there were no separate bedrooms or kitchens. The compartmentalized kirchens that

folowed were partii;#ly-fi";p;fi a;"i" of the housewife (Oakley 19?4)' The

homemaker had a rd;E il-""dry i" t er kirchen. Thisseparate sP.ace ir.rtensified the

housewife'r r"p**ti'on ii",n iiiC in ttre oot"id" world. Spacidizea appliances and work

surfaces served to pui |ouna-ies on her workrole and lymbolized her specific place in

society. As women;i"y"d il**ingly varied roles in our society over time, and as more

women went to worf oitside the horie, they continued to receive f-*O pp*ssors and

knife sets for Christm"r *a Uittf,auy gifts, ina were expect"d t9 tukq u? inexpensive

hobbies contributing t" t[" ft.*", tri"f, * gardening or'crochqti-ng. (Andre 1!Al)' This

illusrrates t o* "u"n"*i."Jrl"ii"r" activities are 6ften not of ttreirown definition, but

instead extensions of their domestic confines. The current popularity of Martha Stuart

bears witness to this.

CONCLUSION

The historical definition of housework as "women's work" has had a holdover effect, and

;"fl-..1 ;ift" iyt"u"fii associations that exist with the tools of the trade- Mechanized

household apptrance*s *o" o*".r,"p"d and touted as time- and money-saving.devices that

would make housework easier for'women, thergby increasing their independence and

fr""d;. By lookin/iiift" ttitt .i".t record and the role thathousehold technology has

plaVed in women's fiuity lives, these assumed benefits take on a different meaning for the

ffi##ffi;;iy;;these iools. This can help toexplarn the mixed feelings women

hu* to*ard ,nunytf the household appliances they have in their homes'

Today's women are continu{f y o{ergd ngl-and improved devices to make their

housework pncticalL,-"ilortf"*. the Salad Shooter-ipits out the perfect salad for the. woman on-the-go, [,iM*ftin" allows the ordinary hguyw-ife to slice and dice like a

professional, and *rnpur*ted appliances do a lot of the thinking for the user' The

increasing tlme pressures on women who are employedoutside the household are enticing

marketers to develop more such devices (Oropesa tggf )- However, it will require

iunOum"nttt chang-Js in the uccepted roles of women and men in our t*fll^Tt better

tools, to reduce thJrole overload that modern American women are experiencing and to

place appropriate value on the very necessary task of keeping house'

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Given the complexity of the interaction among consumer, ut1g9 situ3t131'11d householdt*l ou". time,ihereis a lot more room for syilbolic interpretation of the meaning of

upptiun.", in our cutture- For example, a ptienomenologibal investigation of women and

tiJii applian"", *ould yield interesting findings regarding. the role(s) that these 8fggts .u"nruffy play in *o*"n", daily routin& and thi meirulg1tt"V ut11ch t",l:T:1vork. Study

of the evolution of particular ippliances over time could'be used to understand changes in

household make_ui, roles, and functions within the overall socio-politrc4 *.dcommercial/marketine environment. The varying meaning of household tools towomenand men of differenfO?.".i*pttic and lifestyli sigments, especially non-traditionalhouseholds, would be intiresting to anilyri * *itt. An iniportant question to ask is what

g*nO"i biases still exist in the soiiatlzatio"n of children regarding housekeeping? How

r 15

central is housework to perceptions of femininity ? As housework becomes moreautomated, will women experience greaterfreedom from traditional expectations? Becauseof the highly gendered meanings associated with this activity and its tools, housework isimporlant to study.

REFERENCES

Andre, Rae (1!Al), Homemal<ers: TIU ForgottenWorkers, Chicago,IL: The University ofChicago hess.

Beeton, Isabella (1861), Beetonts Book of Household Managernent, New York, NY:Farrar,. Straus and Giroux.

Bristor, Julia M. and Eileen Fischer (1993), "Feminist Thought Implications forConsumer Research," Journal of Cowurrcr Research,lg (March), 518-536.

Brownmiller, Susan (19t34), Femininiry, New York, NY: Fawcett Columbine.

Cowan, Ruth Schwartz (1983), Mole Worktor Mother: Tlu lronies of HouselnldTechnology from the Hearth to the Microwave, New York,.NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Dawson, Don and Maureen Harrington (1995), "L.et Mom Do It: Housework as aConstraint to Women's Lrisure," Proceedings of the Izisure Research Symposium,October 5-8, San Antonio, TX.

Farhi, Paul (1994), "June Cleaver, Call YourAgent," in Buying, Having, and Being: TheWashington Post Consumer Behavior Companion, editeA by Michael R. Solomon,Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Giedion, Siegfried (1948), MechanizationTakcs Command, New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Gordon, Jean and Jan McArthur (1985), "American Women and Domestic Consumption,1 800- 1 920: Four lnterpreti ve Themes, " J ournal of funerican Culture, s, 35-46.

Gottdiener, M. (1985), "Hegemony and Mass culture: A Semiotic Approach," ArnericanJournal of Sociology, 90 (5), 979-1001.

Hareven, Tamara K. (1976), "Modernization and Family History: Perspectives on SocialChange,",Signs; Journal of Women in Culture and Sociery,2 (l),190:206.

Kleine, Robert E. III and Jerome B. Kernan (1991), "Contextual Influences on theMeanings Ascribed to Ordinary Consumption Objects," Journal of Consumer Research, 18(December) ,3ll-324.

Kramarae, Cheris and FaulaA. Treichler (1992), Amazons. Bluestockings. and Crones,London: Pandora hess.

h4igk, David Glen (1985), "Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology919i9ry, Symbols, and Significance," Journal of Consumer Reseirch, 13 lSeptember;,--196-213.

l l 6

Oakley, Ann (1974) ,Woman\ Work: Tlu Housewife. Past and Presenl, New York NY:Vintage Books.

Oropesa, R.S. (1993), "Female l-abor Force Partiopation,T!-Iq"-Saving-HouseholdTechnology: A Case Study of the Microwave from 1978-1!89," Journal of CoraunerResearch, 19 (March), %7-579.

Robinson, John P. ( 1980), "Housework Technology and Household Work," in Womenand Household Labor, ed. Sarah Fenslermaker Berk, Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublications, 53-68.

Smith, Bonnie G. (1989), Ctnnging Lives: Womenin European History Sirce 1700,I-exington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Solomon, Michael R. (1983), "The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A SymbolicInteractionism Perspective," Journal of Consurrcr Research, 9, 370-380.

Solomon, Michael R. (1996), Consumer Belnvior: Buying, Having, and Being (ThirdEdition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, p.81.

Vanek, Joann (lfi ),"Time Spent in Housework," Scicntific Anarican, 23l(November),1 16-120.

Ware, Susan (1989), Modern AnericanWomen: A Documentary History, Chicago, IL:The Dorsey Press.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary QgTl), Chicago, IL: EncyclopediaBritannica. Inc.

rt7

1 1 8