Lisa Dillon, PRDH, Université de Montréal

1. Evolving toward independence (?): Long-term changes in Canadian elderly women’s residential patterns, 1852-1911 Lisa Dillon, PRDH, Université de Montréal

2. Literature & Project • Canada: elderly in institutions; communitystudies; co-residential patterns 1871 & 1901; prolongedco-residencedependent kids withelderlycompared to U.S. • U.S.: Recent publications on sharpdecline in intergenerationalco-residence, opportunities for kids, decliningpatriarchal power • Role of elderlywomen in transformation of intergenerational relations between 19th & 20th centuries lessunderstoodthanthat of men • Previouslack of a continuouscensus data series for Canada to study long-term change

3. Canadian historicalcensus 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 nowavailable 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

4. 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?

5.  Comparability of data across time ?? Parent/parent-in-law of head • 1852: Ontario & Québec only; 1871: ON, QC, NS & NB only • 1852: dwellinglevelonly ; 1881 : householdlevelonly • 1852, 1871 & 1881: relationship to headinferred (conservative vs liberalestimates of co-residence?) ; 1891, 1901 & 1911: original question; 1852: familymember/non-member question

6. Ont elderlywomenconsistently headingdwellings in high(est) %’s  hh Ont NB, NS, QC, Man QC • Shift to dwellinghead, for comparability (except 1881) • Note: % of wid/nev-marr 65+hhheadswhoalsoheaded the dwelling: 1911:94%; 1901:96%; 1891:94%; 1871:82% (!) • 1871 Quebec: 36% are hh heads but only 27% dwelling heads • Nature of dwellingcomplexity changes (related to unrelated?) • (in 1852, manual inspection does not « create » many more agedfemaleheads…; large familiesofteninterrelated…)

7. Bivariateanalysis, dwellingheads, 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) Young-old relativegains; closing gap betweenwidowed & nevmarried

8. covariatesonlypartiallyexplain ↑ prov’ldiff ↓marst ↑agediff Covariates: age, marital status, religion&birthplace, rural-urban-farm status, province, occupation or “rentière”, servants present

9. Protestants definitively more likely to head; province remainssignificant

10. more headshipacrosscontexts occupation/personalwealth more advantageous ? usuallyelite=headship

11. Conclusions • The particular changes observedwere not unexpected, but whatis new isunderstanding: • the timing of change: much change happening between 1852 & 1891 (?); the 1891 to 1911 period more stable • the intersection of changes: as more elderlywomenheadinghouseholds, wealsosee: • More empty-nests, • decline of twoparents withdependent kids • Parent-in-law of headreplacing parent of head (nature of being parent changing) • the continuedregionality of these patterns (Ontario vanguard?)

12. Importance of data series: periodizingheadshipincrease • ….? influence of MarriedWomen’sPropertyActswhichliberalizedwomen’sinvestments & propertyownership (P. Baskerville 2008) “The 1880s legislation was most definitely facilitative and catalytic in effect. "

13. Elderlywidows & single women, & dwellingheadship: • Relationship to other histories: • Hastening of French-Canadian family life cycle (earlymarriages) + • Outmigrationof French-Canadian youths to Montréal, New England + earlyages at marriage • = French Canadian elderlywomenlose « window of opportunity » for householdheadship • 20th-century decline in intergenerationalco-residence: • Children’s exits as much about escapingmatriarchalrule as patriarchalrule • As much about women’sgrowingopportunities to self-finance householdheadship • Twocomplementarydevelopments • As much about competing cultural & regionalnorms(which date back at least as far as 1852)

15. 1852 question on householdmembership → min. and max. bounds • 1871 & 1881 show max. bounds ; comparing maximum boundssuggests: • Real ↓ in % living as parent of head, but timedbetween 1852 & 1881 • Post-1881 shift isfrom parent to parent-in-law (1891 to 1911 statsreliable)

16. Changingdestinies??? • Little change over time ; directly comparable measures; subtle shifts

17. Parent of householdhead Head of household Emptynest • Rise in % emptynest • Earlyrise in % headinghouseholds • Decline in % parent of head, from 44% to 32% • Rise in those living in « other » living arrangements