Evolving toward independence (?): Long-term changes in Canadian elderly women’s residential

patterns, 1852-1911

Lisa Dillon, PRDH, Université de Montréal

Literature & Project

Canada: elderly in institutions; community studies; co-residential patterns 1871 & 1901; prolonged co-residence dependent kids with elderly compared to U.S.

U.S.: Recent publications on sharp decline in intergenerational co-residence, opportunities for kids, declining patriarchal power

Role of elderly women in transformation of intergenerational relations between 19th & 20th centuries less understood than that of men

Previous lack of a continuous census data series for Canada to study long-term change

Canadian historical census data series

New census data sources for Canada permitting us to construct a data series, à la IPUMS

So far, 1852, (not yet 1861), 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1911

1921, 1931, 1941, 1951 now available at research data sources (analysis to come soon)

U. of York, U. of Victoria, U. of Ottawa, U. de Montréal, U of Guelph, Memorial U. of Nfld, U du Québec à TR, U of Toronto, U of Alberta, U. Laval, + U du Québec à Chic., McGill U., & NAPP (MPC, U of Minn.) & Stats Can & LAC

Hypotheses Over time: increasing % head; decreasing %

parent; increasing diversity of living arrangements

Headship & age: Negative Headship & living in Ontario: Positive Headship & Canadian-Catholic: Negative ***Associations themselves not as interesting

as the periodization of change + whether the strength of these associations are constant over time

Change over time?

1852 1871 1881 1891 1901 19110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 1: Percent distribution of women 65+ by hou-sehold status and year, 1852-1911 CanadaAll other (including other

nonrelative)Boarder, lodger, tenant, no childrenServant or labourerOther relativeSibling/sib-in-law of household headWidowed parent or parent-in-law of household head*Head of household, children presentHead of household, no children presentMarried parent or parent-in-law of household headSpouse of household head, no children present

Spouse of head no kids

Head no kidsHead, with kids

Spouse of head with kids

• 1852: Ontario & Québec only; 1871: ON, QC, NS & NB only

• 1852: dwelling level only ; 1881 : household level only• 1852, 1871 & 1881: relationship to head inferred

(conservative vs liberal estimates of co-residence?) ; 1891, 1901 & 1911: original question; 1852: family member/non-member question

Comparability of data across time ??

Parent/parent-in-law of head

1852 dw 1871 dw 1881 hh 1891 dw 1901 dw 1911 dw0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% Distribution widowed/never-married women 65+

by dwelling headship & province, 1852-1911 Canada

New Brunswick Nova Scotia PEI

Quebec Ontario Manitoba

British Columbia

• Shift to dwelling head, for comparability (except 1881)• Note: % of wid/nev-marr 65+hh heads who also

headed the dwelling: 1911:94%; 1901:96%; 1891:94%; 1871:82% (!)

• 1871 Quebec: 36% are hh heads but only 27% dwelling heads

• Nature of dwelling complexity changes (related to unrelated?)

• (in 1852, manual inspection does not « create » many more aged female heads…; large families often interrelated…)

Ont

QC

NB, NS, QC, Man

Ont elderly women consistentlyheading dwellings in high(est) %’s

hh

Bivariate analysis, dwelling heads, 1852 & 1911 contrasted

+ young-old + widowed (not single+

No servant present) + Rural non-farm + Protestant born in

Scotland; by 1911 Protestant

+ Occupation listed or « rentière/bourgeois/ income »

(1852: no meaningful pattern re: dwelling type construction)

 Widows/Nev Marr 65+ Women: Dwelling Head  1852 1911All 15 3165-69 19 3870-74 16 3175-80 13 2780+ 10 21Widowed 18 33Never Married 4 18

Young-old relative gains;

closing gap

between widowed

& nev married

Table 6: Logistic regression on the probability of heading a household

by select characteristics, widows & never-married women aged 65+ years,

1852 & 1911 Ontario & Québec  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

  1852 & 19111852 & 1911 1852 only 1911 only

  Exp (B) Sig Exp (B) SigExp (B) Sig Exp (B) Sig

               1852 0.44 0 0.584 0    1911 1   1      

Quebec residence     0.6980.00

1 0.8120.38

2 0.6610.00

1Ontario residence   1   1   1  Never married   .275 0 .149 0 .312 0Widowed     1   1   1   65-69   1   1   1

70-74   0.702 0 0.8360.35

7 0.667 0

75-80   0.615 0 0.6780.09

2 0.595 080+   0.433 0 0.429 0 0.428  0

Covariates: age, marital status, religion&birthplace, rural-urban-farm status, province, occupation or “rentière”, servants present

covariates only partially explain ↑ prov’l

diff

↑age diff

↓marst

Table 6: Logistic regression on the probability of heading a household

by select characteristics, widows & never-married women aged 65+ years,

1852 & 1911 Ontario & Québec

  Model 3 Model 4

  1852 only 1911 only

  Exp (B) Sig Exp (B) Sig

Protestant-England & Wales 1.195 0.687 1.545 0.024

Protestant-Scotland 2.377 0.01 2.443 0

Protestant-Ireland 1.796 0.11 1.885 0.002

Catholic-Ireland 0.838 0.688 2.463 0

Protestant-Canada 2.119 0.067 1.703 0

United States 1.733 0.082 1.487 0.181

Else 1.211 0.491 1.666 0.002

Catholic-Canada 1   1  

Protestants definitively more likely to head; province remains significant

Table 6: Logistic regression on the probability of heading a household

by select characteristics, widows & never-married women aged 65+ years,

1852 & 1911 Ontario & Québec  Model 3 Model 4  1852 only 1911 only

  Exp (B) Sig Exp (B) Sig

Living in city 3,000+ persons 16.596 0 6.815 0Rural nonfarm 36.724 0 13.045 0Rural farm 1   1  

Occupation 4.782 0 6.841 0

Rentière/Bourgoise 1.866 0.086 2.878 0No occupation 1   1  

Servant(s) present 0.977 0.902 0.454 0No servant present 1   1  

more headship across contexts

occupation/personal wealth more advantageous

? usually elite=headship

Conclusions The particular changes observed were not

unexpected, but what is new is understanding: the timing of change: much change happening

between 1852 & 1891 (?); the 1891 to 1911 period more stable

the intersection of changes: as more elderly women heading households, we also see: More empty-nests, decline of two parents with dependent kids Parent-in-law of head replacing parent of head (nature

of being parent changing) the continued regionality of these patterns

(Ontario vanguard?)

Importance of data series: periodizing headship increase ….? influence of Married Women’s Property

Acts which liberalized women’s investments & property ownership (P. Baskerville 2008)

1852 dw 1871 dw 1881 dw? 1891 dw 1901 dw 1911 dw0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% widowed/nev-married women 65+ heading dwellings, by province, 1852-1911 Canada

New BrunswickNova ScotiaPEIQuebecOntarioON

1884

NB 1877

NS 1884

PEI 1903

QC 1931…

“The 1880s legislation was most definitely facilitative and catalytic in effect. "

Elderly widows & single women, & dwelling headship: Relationship to other histories: Hastening of French-Canadian family life cycle (early

marriages) + Outmigration of French-Canadian youths to Montréal,

New England + early ages at marriage = French Canadian elderly women lose « window of

opportunity » for household headship 20th-century decline in intergenerational co-residence:

Children’s exits as much about escaping matriarchal rule as patriarchal rule

As much about women’s growing opportunities to self-finance household headship

Two complementary developments As much about competing cultural & regional norms (which

date back at least as far as 1852)

Table 1: Percent distribution of elderly women by relationship to dwelling/household head, women aged 65+

years, 1852 to 1911 Canada

  ONTARIO & QUEBEC    1852 1871 1881 1891 1901 1911Head 10 20 20 18 20 19Spouse 27 38 33 35 35 30Parent or parent-in-law 36-46 38 33 30 32 29 Parent* 19 22 20 26 24 21 Parent-in-law (inferred)* 17-25 16 13 4 8 6Other Relatives 14-6 3 5 4 6 9Employees 2 1 0 2 2 2Other & indeterminate 12-11 1 8 12 5 11Total 3077 670 61803 3655 4624 5950

• 1852 question on household membership → min. and max. bounds

• 1871 & 1881 show max. bounds ; comparing maximum bounds suggests:1. Real ↓ in % living as parent of head, but timed

between 1852 & 18812. Post-1881 shift is from parent to parent-in-law (1891 to

1911 stats reliable)

1891 1901 19110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent distribution of women 65+ by household status and year, 1891-1911

Canada All other (including other nonrelative)

Servant or labourer

Boarder, lodger, tenant, no children

Other relative

Sibling/sib-in-law of household head

Widowed parent or parent-in-law of household head*

Married parent or parent-in-law of household head

Head of household, no children present

Head of household, children present

Spouse of household head, no children present

Spouse of household head, children present

• Little change over time ; directly comparable measures; subtle shifts

Changing destinies???

1852 1871 1881 1891 1901 19110%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 1: Percent distribution of women 65+ by household status and year, 1852-1911

Canada All other (including other nonrelative)Boarder, lodger, tenant, no childrenServant or labourerOther relativeSibling/sib-in-law of household headWidowed parent or parent-in-law of household head*Head of household, children presentHead of household, no children presentMarried parent or parent-in-law of household headSpouse of household head, no children presentSpouse of household head, children present

• Rise in % empty nest• Early rise in % heading households• Decline in % parent of head, from 44% to 32%• Rise in those living in « other » living arrangements

Empty nest

Head of household

Parent of household head