Copyright 1994 Adam Barnhart. All Rights Reserved. Fair use of this document.

Ultimately, a great deal of Parr's analysis rests on economic factors. The necessity of female employment in Paris, generally supplementing the income of her parents, led to a culture more oriented towards the female experience. Marriage was often delayed, with a general pattern, particularly among emigrants, towards a two-income household. In Hanover, the existing patriarchal system established women more clearly in a domestic role, making wage labor a function of men. Social pressures change these constructions through time, with the notion "that a policy that encouraged female factory employment fostered a social evil" making the preponderance of female labor less common in Paris (233) and the necessity for a greater income forcing some Hanover families into households in which women assume some part of the labor requirements. Socially, the strong bonds between females in Paris lessen, while the economic community of Hanover begins to take precedence over traditional social forces, such as the family.

Methodologically, Parr generally employs a neo-Marxist tack, emphasizing the role of economics in the construction of the community. Her Marxist tendencies, however, are located in a decidedly contemporary feminist model, emphasizing the importance of gender in shaping society. In this respect, her analysis provides great insight into a largely overlooked issue, the role of women in industry, outside the traditional paradigm of the "cult of domesticity" and token employment before marriage. Other cultural issues are also raised, particularly dealing with ethnicity. Her level of inquiry allows for pertinent questions to be raised and, to some extent, be answered. She provides ample statistical, historical, and ethnographic information to support her study of gender and industry.

While she is able, in large part, to answer questions relating to gender, Parr's methodological interests hurt her study to an extent. By attempting to utilize strands of post-structural critique in her work, the general, more positivistic bent of her book is undermined. The Gender of Breadwinners provides excellent argumentation and support for the relationship between economics and the construction of work roles. However, the conciliation to post-modern thought, making social roles a priori conceptualizations, is incongruous with her argument based on economic necessity. A distinction is not made between the fluidity of the roles necessary for a Marxian (or functionalist) analysis and the arbitrary nature of roles that is central to post-structuralism, making many of the statistical supports used sound like scientistic, rather than scientific evidence.

Her definition of community is also somewhat problematic. While she clearly establishes the existence of gender communities and their relationship to other institutions, the idea of a multiplicity of communities is not as evident. Where works such as Anthony Wallace's Rockdale clearly illustrate the existence of a multiplicity of communities with differing interests that have complex effects on other social bodies, in The Gender of Breadwinners, two geographically defined communities are described in terms of gender. The other elements of community, particularly ethnicity, are described as a function of gender and economics. While the impact of economics and gender on culture is described to some extent, the complexities and mutuality of interaction between these forces is largely ignored. A less deterministic analysis of these relationships, employing, in all likelihood, a less Marxian orientation, would address this oversimplification and provide a more compelling argument.