The rush hour: The quality of leisure time and gender equity

Abstract

Time scarcity and the paucity of leisure time are at the center of discussions about the quality of contemporary life (Schor 1991; Nowotny 1994; Adam 1995; Hochschild 1997; Robinson and Godbey 1997). A number of recent developments contribute to this concern. Standard working hours, which assumed a forty-hour week over five working days, are no longer the norm. The increasing incidence of dual-earner families has spawned a vast literature on the "dual burden" or the "second shift." Working patterns are increasingly dominated by a drive for "flexibility" that can create severe difficulties for those seeking to combine work and family life. All these developments appear to be placing increased pressure on leisure time. According to most evidence, people feel leisure time has become scarcer and more harried (Linder 1970; Frederick 1995; Robinson and Godbey 1997). This is especially the case for women, who juggle work, family, and leisure (Bryant and Zick 1996). Indeed, it has been suggested that women are suffering from time poverty (Vickery 1977; Hochschild and Machung 1989; Schor 1991; Hochschild 1997). The fear has been that, following the emergence of the dual-earner family as the norm, women will simply add a shift of paid employment to their existing responsibilities for housework and childcare. This problem has come to be known by various names – the "dual burden," the "double burden," the "double day," and the "second shift." There is now talk of a gender gap in leisure.