“Doing Gender”

Khor, Diana

doi:10.1300/j461v03n01_03

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Court officers and related professionals may explicitly or implicitly expect queer people to fit into heteronormative nuclear family narratives (Kim & Stein, 2018). The expectations of a caregiver and a breadwinner, a feminine partner and a masculine partner, and other binary, gendered roles may not apply to queer families, who tend to divide household and parenting responsibilities differently (Goldberg & Sweeney, 2019; Khor, 2007). Family court professionals may also forget that bisexual, pansexual, and queer‐identifying individuals are often in what appear to be heterosexual family/couple arrangements, as well as what appear to be gay partnerships.…”

Section: Heteronormativity and Cisnormativity In The Family Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intimate partner violence in the LGBTQ+ community: Implications for family court professionals

Davis,

Crain

2024

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) individuals likely experience more intimate partner violence (IPV) than their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts. Though the research on IPV among LGBTQ+ individuals is lacking in quantity, available evidence suggests LGBTQ+ individuals have unique risk factors for IPV victimization and perpetration, express identity‐specific reasons for underreporting IPV, and experience types of IPV specific to their sexual orientation and/or gender identities. Bisexual and transgender individuals appear to be at significantly higher risk of IPV victimization compared to their peers. A search of the Family Court Review archives suggests that IPV affecting bisexual parents has never been directly addressed in the publication, nor has IPV affecting transgender or gender‐nonconforming parents, and the last article on the topic of IPV in gay and lesbian relationships (Bunker Rohrbaugh, 2006) was published more than 15 years ago when marriage and adoption rights were unavailable to most LGBTQ+ individuals. The current article provides an updated and comprehensive discussion of IPV within the broader LGBTQ+ community, reviews the limitations of the extant literature and the need for more research, and demonstrates that LGBTQ+ IPV is a complex issue with which all family court practitioners should be familiar.

show abstract

Section: Heteronormativity and Cisnormativity In The Family Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intimate partner violence in the LGBTQ+ community: Implications for family court professionals

Davis,

Crain

2024

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, nearly all relied on survey self‐report data or in‐depth interviews. There is a concern in the literature about the accuracy of these data (Bauer, 2016; Carrington, 1999; Goldberg et al, 2012; Tornello et al, 2015) because SSCs may be committed to portraying their housework divisions as more equal than they actually are (e.g., Carrington, 1999; though see Khor, 2007). Second, these prior studies often relied on convenience samples recruited by public postings, advertising to sexual minority periodicals, message boards and interest groups, as well as snowball and similar sampling techniques.…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a concern about the accuracy of self‐report measures of housework (Bauer, 2016; Carrington, 1999; Goldberg et al, 2012; Tornello et al, 2015). Specifically, both SSCs and DSCs might be committed to portraying their divisions of housework as more equal than they really are (e.g., Carrington, 1999; Hochschild & Machung, 2003; though see Daminger, 2020; Khor, 2007). Thus, measurement error could have accounted for the prior empirical findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Housework among same‐sex and different‐sex couples: The roles of time and earnings

Fischer

2024

J of Marriage and Family

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study examined how paid work time and earnings are related to time spent in various types of housework tasks among people in same‐sex couples (SSCs) and how these relationships differ from those among people in different‐sex couples (DSCs).BackgroundPrior research on housework among people in SSCs mostly relied on convenience samples and self‐report measures of housework. These methods may have drawbacks related to the selectivity of the samples and the accuracy of the housework measures. Specifically, SSCs might try to portray their housework divisions as more equal than they actually are.MethodThe current study used nationally representative, time diary data from the American Time Use Survey (N = 50,899) to estimate the relationships between paid work time, earnings, and time spent in various types of housework tasks (feminine, masculine, and gender‐neutral tasks) among people in SSCs and DSCs.ResultsPaid work time was related to housework time among both men and women in SSCs, but earnings were only related to housework among men in SSCs. Furthermore, some associations between paid work characteristics and housework were stronger among men in SSCs compared with men in DSCs. Among women, the pattern of couple‐type differences in the associations of interest was more nuanced.ConclusionUsing high‐quality, nationally representative data, the results point to a greater level of specialization of paid work and housework responsibilities among people in SSCs relative to people in DSCs than has previously been observed in the bulk of the literature.

show abstract

“…Cette relative égalité repose sur une réflexion explicite au sein des couples homosexuels. Les membres de ces couples sont plus sensibles que les hétérosexuel•le•s aux questions d'égalité en général et cette attitude se répercute dans leurs couples [Cudeville, Gross et Sofer, 2020 ;Goldberg, 2013 ;Khor, 2007 ;Szymanski et Chung, 2003]. Avoir vécu des relations antérieures hétérosexuelles peut inciter les lesbiennes à ne pas répéter des expériences inégalitaires [Esmail, 2010 ;Rawsthorne et Costello, 2010].…”

Section: Couples De Même Sexe : Un Partage Plus éGalitaireunclassified

Qui lave le linge sale de la famille ?

Stambolis‐Ruhstorfer¹,

Gross²

2021

Travail, Genre Et Sociétés

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article étudie la répartition des tâches ménagères au sein de couples hétéroparentaux et homoparentaux en France. Il mobilise les données quantitatives de l’étude Elfe (Étude longitudinale française depuis l’enfance) et de Devhom (Homoparentalité, fonctionnement familial, développement, et socialisation des enfants). Jusqu’à présent, la littérature comparative a étudié le travail domestique comme un bloc. En détaillant six tâches, notre analyse dégage des schémas genrés précis qui, à partir de ces échantillons, distinguent les deux types de familles. Alors que les couples homoparentaux enquêtés partagent le travail domestique plus équitablement ou le font ensemble, les couples hétéroparentaux de l’échantillon étudié instaurent une assignation genrée des tâches que les mères assument seules, à l’exception des réparations et de la vaisselle. Ainsi, ces familles homoparentales semblent moins reproduire les normes qui traduisent la domination masculine de la distribution des tâches.

show abstract

“Doing Gender”

Cited by 21 publications

References 30 publications

Intimate partner violence in the LGBTQ+ community: Implications for family court professionals

Intimate partner violence in the LGBTQ+ community: Implications for family court professionals

Housework among same‐sex and different‐sex couples: The roles of time and earnings

Qui lave le linge sale de la famille ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About