What did Oakley (1974) argue about Young and Willmott’s evidence for ‘jointness’ in The Symmetrical Family?

• A. It is completely accurate and convincing.
• B. It is unconvincing; many married men claim to help in some way at least weekly.
• C. It shows no sharing at all.
• D. Men never help with housework.

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is whether the claim of a truly symmetrical, jointly run family stands up to feminist critique. Oakley argued that Young and Willmott’s evidence for jointness isn’t convincing because many married men said they helped with housework at least weekly, yet this “help” doesn’t amount to real equality. The help tends to be selective, limited to tidy or incidental tasks, and often framed by husbands as a contribution rather than as sharing the burden. Meanwhile, women continue to do the bulk of domestic work and child care and to maintain tighter control over the home, so the picture of a fully shared, equal partnership is overstated. Oakley’s point is that relying on men’s self-reports about helping can distort the true division of labour, making the evidence for jointness appear stronger than it is.