INTRODUCTION:

Gender space emphasis lies on the physical and design features of the home and, in common with
other such studies, may be seen to be largely gender-neutral (Madigan et al, 1990). Although
Saunder’s and William’s work does broaden the scope of urban sociology and marks a shift in
research away from concentrating on the public realm towards a focus on the private sphere, whilst
recognising that the domestic should be included in urban problems, it fails to consider questions
of power and gender relations within the home (Somerville, 1989). The trap that many studies fall
into when introducing gender as an aspect of research, is that they equate ‘gender’ with only
concerning women (McDowell, 1983). Often women are ‘slotted-in’ in order to satisfy a claim
for a gendered approach. What is really required is a consideration of the relationships between
and among men and women, boys and girls, in order to gain an understanding of how the home
may be experienced differently according to gender (Paula Townsend)

THEORIES:

Family-centered theories for nonindustrial societies focus on the status advantages,

for women, of matriarchal descent and matrilocal residence, compared with the
disadvantages of patrilineal descent and patrilocal residence (Blumberg 1984;
Chafetz 1984; Collins 1986; Whyte 1978), the role of male responsibility for domestic
tasks (Coltrane 1988), and the primacy of women's reproductive roles (Ortner 1974).
Family-centered theories for industrial and advanced industrial societies also
emphasize the importance of mothering (Chodorow 1979), in addition to socialization
that stresses relationships for girls and rules for boys (Gilligan 1982) and a division
of labor within the home which reduces t he probability that women will earn high
wages outside the home (Berk 1985). These explanations identify women's
responsibilities in the private sphere as having negative consequences for their status
in the public space (Daphne Spain, 1993)

Human capitalists argue that women and men invest differently in market skills and
thus reap different rewards (Mincer and Polachek 1974), whereas proponents of the
occupational segregation explanation argue that women's status is lower than men's
because women work in poorly paid "women's jobs" as teachers, nurses, and
secretaries (Reskin and Hartmann 1986; Roos 1985). These theories focus on women's
roles in the public sphere but acknowledge that "choices" or "preferences" for
different types of work often are influenced by women's responsibilities in the private
sphere of the home. Public and private spheres, of course, are not separate worlds but
aspects of the same sociocultural system (Collier and Yanagisako 1987; Moore 1988)
(Daphne Spain, 1993)

THE SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE:

Gendered spaces exist on both the architectural and the geographic scale. Distinctions
within dwellings. Geographic segregation exists when women and men are distanced
from each other by occupying entirely different buildings. Whether architectural or
geographic, the effect of spatial segregation is to reduce women's access to socially
valued knowledge. Spatial arrangements might not be associated with gender
stratification if all resources were distributed equally between masculine and
feminine places. Yet that rarely is the case. The "masculine knowledge" conveyed in
schools and workplaces is typically granted higher status than the "feminine
knowledge" associated with the dwelling (Daphne Spain, 1993)

Historical context:

For the historical analysis of the United States, I measured spatial segregation in
homes by examining popular housing designs. Changes over time in floor plans for
domestic vernacular architecture were traced from the nineteenth -century Downing
cottage to con temporary designs emph asizing "great rooms." I measured segregated
education by the presence or absence of females in the public school system during
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and measured segregation in the American
workplace by women's degree of separation from men in the most typical occupations
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Daphne Spain, 1993)

PRIVATE NATURE OF HOME:

The idea of ‘normal family life’ being built around the nuclear family living
independently in its own, separate dwelling remains a popular image (Allan and
Crow, 1989). However it may not be that simple to distinguish between the public
and the private, as access to the home varies; different people have different access
at different times (Mason, 1989). This particularly applies to women, who once in
the home of another family, are more likely to have access to more (or all) parts of
the home than men. Access to bedrooms, kitchens and bathrooms is often more free
for women than men (Gullestad, 1993), and this would appear to be a cross -cultural
occurrence.

Home provides a private place for the family, but does not necessarily secure equal
amounts of privacy for all members of the family. This is particularly true for women,
but could also apply to children who are subject to parental approval (Allan and Crow,
1989). Within the home children have their own bedrooms or, if they share a bedroom
with other siblings, they claim at least part of that room.

SECURITY, CONTROL AND FREEDOM WITHIN HOME:

Women may experience a sense of autonomy in the control and planning involved
with running a home. Autonomy may be experienced in control of consumption of
the household, and this view is supported by Gullestad (1993). Saunders (1989)
regards control over spending as a major power resource within household units.
Indeed, he equates it to power resources in other social settings, such as the
workplace. However it must be remembered that for many women the chore of
running and maintaining a home proves tiresome and, whilst for some it provides
opportunities of autonomy this still remains clearly within the domestic sphere, thus
reinforcing traditional ideologies about women’s roles and ownership within the
home, and possibly maintaining overall dependency upon the male partner (Paula
Townsend)

Freedom within the home may similarly be experienced differently according to

gender. This especially applies to the issu e of leisure time and activities. Ideally
‘home’ equals relaxation and leisure, but for women it may also be a place of work
and duty. This can be most clearly demonstrated on special occasions, when other
members of the home are relaxing, women remain p rimarily responsible for tidying,
serving and cooking (Hunt, 1989). Mason (1988) expands on this idea in her research
on the home and marriage in later life. The home ideally, especially in retirement, is
about leisure, but whose leisure? Being at home for women does not necessarily
mean having free time. Mason argues that the women in her study were producers of
the home, and that this was done on two levels: firstly, for husbands and secondly,
for public scrutiny(Paula Townsend)

Conclusion:

The home, and the gender relations within it, are not static, and what is required is
more balanced research that recognizes the dynamic nature of the home environment
and which further acknowledges and explores the gendering of both images of the
home and the space within it. Power relations within the home, associated mainly
with gender and age differences, need to be investigated in more depth in order to
gain a greater understanding of the social significance of the home (Somerville,
1989). The home must be recognized for its role in maintaining existing ideologies
surrounding gender and for representing, and promoting, ideals. As McDowell (1983)
and Madigan, et al (1990) would agree, whilst the home continues to be regarded as
a haven, the likelihood of gender-based urban social movements and a true
understanding of gendered experience within the home is greatly reduced (Paula
Townsend)