Sociologist Dr. Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has, not for the first time, attracted considerable controversy in response to the publication last week of her most recent paper, “Feminist Myths & Magic Medicine”. Hakim has previously published provocatively titled works such as her 1996 paper “Mummy, I want to be a Housewife” and last year’s controversial article in the European Sociological Review entitled “Erotic Capital”. This latter contends that women should prize assets such as looks, charm and sexuality and that this “beauty premium” can have as big an impact on your career as your educational qualifications or background.
In “Feminist Myths & Magic Medicine” she argues that the battle for equality is effectively over, that “most of the theories and ideas built up around gender equality in the past few decades are wrong” and that women still aspire to “marry up”, that is to marry men who are richer and more intelligent than they are (though they were not asked I suspect that men would be quite keen on the idea of marrying money too; a situation that would undermine the argument somewhat). A number of outraged women have accused Hakim of “depowering women” and taking us back to the days of Jane Austen. Feminist campaigning and advocacy group The Fawcett Society accuse her of “threatening the progress made in women’s lives”.
However, the reaction to Hakim’s most recent pronouncements has been far from universally negative. Some women argue that there is merit in what she says. The reality, they contend, is that family life requires a couple to operate as a partnership and that rearing children requires one party to spend more time at home. The greater the earning potential of the male partner, the less pressure the family unit is under to juggle childcare and seek a second household income.
Hakim’s own approach is to advocate preference theory, supporting a woman’s right to choose whether to remain in the workplace or the home and using the fact that the vast majority of main earners are men to support her theory that women, when given the choice, opt to remain at home. However, in her comprehensive critique of Dr. Hakim’s theories in the most recent edition of the Sunday Times, Kate Spicer quotes University of Cambridge Centre for Gender Studies’ director Jude Brown as saying: “Hakim belongs to the school of thought that interprets certain inequalities as reflections of the choices that individuals make. The thinking here is that these choices are related to people’s preferences. But for there to be a real choice there need to be different options, instead of just herding people into stereotypical roles. For most families seeking to balance child care and work, there is no real choice”.
This is the crux of the matter in my opinion. I firmly believe that we are addressing the wrong issue entirely. Instead of looking at how we should or shouldn’t force the square peg that is the modern, well-educated mother into the round hole that is the modern, inflexible, often dysfunctional workplace should we not be asking how we can incorporate more flexibility into the workplace thus allowing society to benefit from the skill sets of women who can do more that feed a baby and fill a dishwasher?
As a rather disorganised mother of two young children I cannot envisage taking on the stress involved in juggling the kind of full-time, high-powered career that I enjoyed before my little ones arrived. Yet as a well qualified, experienced and highly motivated individual I simply cannot draw sufficient fulfillment from adopting the role of homemaker alone. For a women in my situation (and there are many of us) the options for combining a flexible career with the role as primary child carer (the housework can frankly go to hell or be sub-contracted as far as I’m concerned) are very limited. What organisation wants to hear that you are only willing to work term-time? Yet my children are in school and for thirty weeks of the year I can devote five hours per day to productive, revenue generating and ultimately fulfilling activities. That’s 750 productive hours per annum, not one of which will be spent nursing a hangover, moodily dreaming about a turbulent love life or worrying what I’ll wear at the week-end as may have been the case for my younger, single self (I’m admitting nothing). Employers take note – mothers are brilliant and efficient multi-taskers who make the most of the precious hours available.
In the recently published How Woman Mean Business (a follow-up to Why Woman Mean Business, co-authored with Alison Maitland in 2009), Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, CEO of gender consultancy 20-First, clearly and comprehensively documents how corporations can best implement strategies to achieve gender balance and attract the best and brightest members of both halves of the talent pool. She believes that enlightened companies are moving away from the old ineffective mindset and adopting radical and viable new strategies.
At 20-First gender balance is treated as a business issue not a woman’s issue and blockages are removed. This approach is considered radical and attracts clients that are, “open to new solutions and willing and committed to work with them”, having recognised that their organisation is flawed. They realise that gender balancing brings the best mix of management styles to the fore and has a positive impact on the bottom line. As for the rest, “traditional, resistant companies go elsewhere and continue to do all the wrong things.” The “wrong things” include talking about glass ceilings and setting up internal all-female support groups, thus treating women as the problem and convincing them that in order to succeed they must learn to behave more like men.
Ensuring that women remain and thrive in an organisation requires a shift away from the old notion of linear career progression. That’s why women are often attracted to entrepreneurship as it offers greater control. However, access to capital can be problematic. Wittenberg-Cox believes that, “it’s all about shifting the mindset. Creative solutions such as job sharing will work if the company is well disposed to trying them”. Many men welcome changes intended to redress the gender imbalance as this represents an opportunity to improve working life for everyone. So, is the traditional workplace dysfunctional? Wittenberg-Cox contests this assertion, saying that it is simply “outdated. [The system] worked perfectly well in its time when a man went to work every day and had a wife at home to look after him but that time is gone.”
The crux of the issue is this: women should not be expected to make unrealistic sacrifices and take on unrealistic stress; Children should not effectively spend their little lives becoming potentially institutionalised in various crèches and after-school facilities from early morning to late at night (and I do realise that this may be a personal bias and that many children seem to thrive in childcare); and men should not lose the happy, dynamic and successful woman they married to have her replaced by a Stepford style automaton who starts hitting the vino earlier and earlier each day.
What should happen is that society should reorganise itself to allow for more flexibility, thus facilitating the needs of all. Perhaps a mum could take five years out to get her children to school-going age without losing out on status and promotional opportunities as Gwyneth Williams, recently appointed controller of BBC Radio 4, did. Perhaps an Irish dad could take three months off when a new baby arrives as his Norwegian counterpart can. Perhaps junior can spend a happy morning in school knowing that he will be collected by a calm, fulfilled, contented mum not one burnt out by juggling unrealistic demands or worn down by domestic chores that hold little interest for her. Is that Utopia? Perhaps it is and I’d sure like to live there.
I completely agree that it is the patriarchal working world that is the villain here. It may be that we will have to rely on EU legislation to push us in this, more flexible, direction.
I spoke to a successful woman entrepreneur recently and I asked her about how she balances children and work. She said that, when she was pregnant first, she was petrified about telling her then bosses. It’s a terrible thing when something so great has to translate into fear in the context of the workplace. Of course, entrepreneurship was the route she ended up taking …
That brings back memories of my (woman) boss’s reaction to my announcement that I was pregnant. “Is it planned” says she. I was 34 and 7 years married. “Er, yes” says I. It went downhill from there.
Great article. I agree that mothers are amazing multitaskers, but I think many employers need convincing of this as you don’t realise just how efficient parenting makes you until you become a parent. I remember asking a female executive from the book publishing world, who had worked quite far up the chain around 20 years ago, whether she was ‘written off’ by her colleagues when she had her children. She said she never ever mentioned her children, had pictures of them in the workplace or made any concession to their existence, as that was the only way to survive against expectations that she would not be able to meet the demands of her job and her children. Instead of celebrating her new skills, they were ignored. Very sad situation.
Thanks Sara. Sad situation indeed and all too common it seems! Hiding the evidence was well-meaning advice I was offered myself once….the day I decided not to return after maternity leave.
Think part of the issue in many workplace environments at the moment is the expectation that employees can and will put in crazy amounts of overtime at short notice. Better management of large projects makes it easier for those with limited but effectively-managed time to contribute in a meaningful way.
I agree! Poor organisation and unrealistic/unnecesary deadlines cause untold stress and create the potential for major errors and poor decision making. We all need to slow down a bit and take stock.
A very valid argument. How would you feel about being paid less than the equally academically qualified worker beside you though?
For the type of work arrangement to work, the parent taking the 9 months of part-time work has to realise that with each decade worked their child-free counter-part is gaining roughly 3 years more experience than them (more if parental or maternity leave is taken in this timeframe).
It seems very unfortunate (and counter-productive) to me, that most feminist groups seem to be more focused on pay gaps that exist when looking at broad gender categorisations while ignoring underlying factors than making arguments about the valid contributions parents can make to the business world.
Did Dr Hakim ask any women who may have given a decade or more to
the raising of their children about the restlessness and boredom of
motherhood?
I ask this because I can quite clearly remember my own mum’s desire
to get back to work, the neighbours tutting at her driving off everyday
in her wee blue Triumph Hearld to work and the crisp references to
the lack of linens on her washing line on monday mornings. The issue
of choice is just that, mum had four children in close proximity , stayed
at home for a while and then sought to get back to work. Her struggle
in terms of obtaining education and against the neighbourly tutting
was immense and coloured my life.
I did not see why my highly talented and restless mum could not
enter the world of work and education, it was indeed, my first
exposure to feminism. She is in her early seventies now and running
her own business (working away) but the struggle to advance in
her early forties was appalling, she funded her BA and MA from
her secretarial job.
I truly believe that women like Dr Hakim do not ask the relevant questions
regarding motherhood and education/aspiration and instead focus on
providing fodder for think-tanks to use in a fashion that adds to the societal
guilting of whatever path is chosen. I do not know a single woman friend
who has not had to struggle with career/ family/ no kids/kids choices, the
fact that there is little in terms of support either way in our choices really
illustrates the lack of women in their 20s-40s in the political system here
in ireland anyway.
Can you see a Minister/CEO/Manager retiring at age of 25-45 to focus
on building his family ? The hugest gap in female political representation
is in that age-group, and therefore that voice and experience is wholly absent
from debates and indeed invisible in terms providing postive role-models!
Your mum makes a very interesting case study Christine. It takes a brave woman to defy convention like that. My own mum – a very bright woman – was forced to leave her civil service job due to the nonsensical marriage bar. She never worked outside the home again and was often deeply unhappy and unfulfilled. She is a quiet, compliant woman and just didn’t have the energy or wherewithal to defy convention. What a waste!
The lack of role models amongst that generation is indeed an issue for younger women.
I think that Jude Brown clearly states the reality, which is, “For most families seeking to balance child care and work, there is no real choice”.
I believe the concept of “marrying up” is completely irrelevant in modern Western society. Hard to believe it is still an ongoing conversation.
RE: Marrying Up
If it’s such an irrelevance in this day and age, why then do the “WAGS” sell so many magazines? These vacuous, consumerist twits terrify me when I think my daughter’s future peer group in school may look on their lifestyle as something aspirational!
I wouldn’t worry about it too much, my daughter is a typical 19 year old, Jersey Shore watcher, and even she thinks that WAG culture is more to be pitied than laughed at, I’m sure your child will be fine.
Dear Eoin,
Sorry if I offended you. I would not consider a WAG to be someone who “married up”. Still, I get your point.
It’s just that, to me, “marrying up” seems like an archaic mindset that has no business in modern vernacular.
Very interesting article. My partner earns substantially more than me and I would be horrified if anyone suggested that was a reason why I am with him. He is the rock in my life, but one part of me does acknowledge that his pay packet would make things easier should we have children in the future. However his high earning job is also highly stressful and he would ideally like to move to a job he would enjoy more, which would most likely entail a pay cut. I fully support this decision and would love to see him in his ideal job, but I am aware this may have repurcussions. More flexible work practices for me would be the ideal solution as I love my job too and hate the thought of an either/or choice.
Thanks. Your situation almost exactly mirrors my own. When we started out together we coincidentally earned almost exactly the same amount. Now he earns multiples of my salary (which is very tiny) but is often stressed out & feels a huge weight of responsibility to provide, one that in many ways society has burdened him with.
in response to E
I posted a few minutes ago re my mum’s struggles (^)
My dad was earning more but got very ill and we
became dependent on her sole earning capacity.
again something univestigated through the rosy-tinted
glasses of Dr H.
The issue of family income and repurcussive effects
of one partner’s ability to generate income almost
as ignored as the issue of restlessness/boredom
and the right to develop the mind and intelligence
by us females seem wholly ignored. In marital/longterm
relationships , everyone has to contribute and life being
what it is- I cannot believe that anyone would not
encourage self-reliance and independence in terms
of education, work, enjoyment and responsibility.
I may be over-reacting but we were all brought up
in the same manner and encouraged in the home
to develop our capacities rather than seeing ourselves
as possibly dependent in our future lives.
“and that women still aspire to “marry up”, that is to marry men who are richer and more intelligent than they are…”
The dating website OkCupid has an interesting blog that explores the statistical data produced by the huge number of users. They found that men over the age of 23 are judged strongly on their (reported) income by women. That is, the richer the men were, the more women sent them messages. So it still seems to be a factor for many people:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online-dating/
I think Catherine Hakim sounds broadly correct. I see feminists complain about those inequalities that harm women (lower incomes, fewer women in high political office, higher risk of sexual assault, etc.) but ignoring those inequalities that harm men (greater threat from homicide, higher suicide levels, shorter life expectancies, conscription in wartime, higher car insurance premiums, etc.). So I find it difficult to believe much modern feminism really wants equality, if it is concerned with the welfare of only one sex.
“I see feminists complain about those inequalities that harm women (lower incomes, fewer women in high political office, higher risk of sexual assault, etc.) but ignoring those inequalities that harm men (greater threat from homicide, higher suicide levels, shorter life expectancies, conscription in wartime, higher car insurance premiums, etc.). So I find it difficult to believe much modern feminism really wants equality, if it is concerned with the welfare of only one sex.”
What exactly would you suggest women do about homicides, suicides, shorter lives, conscription and car insurance?
Men mostly murder men, suicide is preventable only if the victim reaches out. Conscription? I would fight against it should the need arise in this country and if a man is unhappy with his insurance company- probably headed by a man- he needs to take it up with his insurance company and decry it as sexist if that is what is boils down to, then I will agree totally with him.
So what do you want feminists to do exactly? It’s not good enough to throw up a ‘dear lord what about the men’ but put forward no solution. So here you go, what about them?
Yeah, I agree all of the above are valid concerns – but I don’t see why they should be feminists’ concerns!
I love the blokes who look around at things like women’s groups and higher spending on women’s healthcare, and assume that it just somehow happened, rather than happened because someone put in huge amounts of effort, grit and determination into MAKING them happen.
Arlene,
I think many feminist complaints about society are hypocritical and sexist.
Personally I think it just doesn’t matter that there are disproprotionately few women in politics or running businesses. Likewise I don’t care that more men kill themselves, die younger, pay more insurance, etc. I’m not calling for change either way, it’s more or less fine as it is.
Our society is full of discrimination that benefits one sex over the other. BOTH sexes benefit from different kinds of discrimination, however. Many feminists seem to care only about the discrimination which harms women, while ignoring the discrimination which harms men.
The justice system, for example. I’ve read reports from UK and US showing that courts consistently give female offenders more lenient sentences than males. In the US, for example, females make up an inexplicably low proportion of executed prisoners (0.6% of all executions since 1900). I think if the positions were reversed, a great number of feminists would be outraged and demanding change. As it is, nobody cares much that juries and judges kill more male criminals than female. (Interestingly people do get furious that black males are disproprotionately executed in the US: racial discrimination against blacks is unacceptable, but sexual discrimation against men in this case goes largely unmentioned.)
I find that feminists dismiss disadvantages associated with males, blaming men for their own behaviour. But disadvantages associated with females are blamed on patriarchy, on the system. This double standard seems sexist.
For example, a good deal of the income gap between men and women can be explained by choices made by women (working fewer hours, failing to ask for raises, leaving work to raise family, etc.) not by some kind of discrimination. However many feminists seem to find this an unacceptable explanation.
I don’t believe patriarchy exists – at least in modern Ireland. I don’t think men have considerable advantages over women here. I also don’t think males are distinctly disadvantaged – both sexes enjoy advantages and disadvantages. To focus on the disadvantages suffered by only one sex, however, seems sexist.
“So what do you want feminists to do exactly?”
I want you to do the same thing for men that I want you to do for women: nothing. What reforms in politics or economics we could take should, I think, make no reference to sex, and instead treat citizens as individuals.
“Yeah, I agree all of the above are valid concerns – but I don’t see why they should be feminists’ concerns!”
I’m baffled, are you saying that feminists should only care about females? Isn’t that sexist?!
Surely all humans should care about other individuals regardless of sex or race or nationality.
“I don’t believe patriarchy exists – at least in modern Ireland.”
I will remember you typed this, especially the next time a PricewaterhouseCoopers style email gets sent around a professional office.
Arlene, check out this 2007 survey of workplace bullying in the US:
http://workplacebullying.org/docs/WBIsurvey2007.pdf
It found that victims of male bullying are 53.5% male, 46.5% female. Victims of female bullying are 71.3% female.
That would match what I’ve seen in workplaces. Domineering males don’t gang up to bully women – rather they bully EVERYONE they can, regardless of sex. (That also explains why males are the overwelming majority of homicide victims – victims of the struggle among males for status and power.)
This doesn’t fit into a feminist narrative of the patriarchal society. The PricewaterhouseCoopers story got lots of attention and outrage where most workplace bullying incidents do not: men treating other men like crap isn’t newsworthy perhaps.
The PWC case wasn’t about bullying. It was about the sexualising and “other”-ising of women in the workplace.
“The PWC case wasn’t about bullying. It was about the sexualising and “other”-ising of women in the workplace.”
It makes no difference what category of abusive behaviour it was, surely, when emotional harm results either way. It seems that this modern feminist perspective ignores the male victims of abuse and uses the female victims as evidence of a systematic sexism that does not actually exist.
South Park poked fun at this idea in the episode Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime. Cartman’s abusive treatment of the black student caused outrage (because it was “racist”) even though his abusive treatment of other whites did not:
“…if you want to hurt another human being, you’d better make damn sure they’re the same color as you are.”
…And the same sex! In the South Park example, the wider narrative of racism made people especially sensitive towards the idea of a white boy harming a black boy. It was nonsense, though, because Cartman treats everyone like crap: by emphasising only ONE victim because of his race they were racially discriminating against Cartman’s other victims. People were so paranoid about racism that they embraced racism. I am concerned that we see a similar thing here.
Abusive men attack men. Abusive men attack women. So why focus only on the female victims and call it sexism? In dismissing the male victims, that seems sexist.
>> ignoring those inequalities that harm men (greater threat from homicide, higher suicide levels, shorter life expectancies, conscription in wartime, higher car insurance premiums, etc.). So I find it difficult to believe much modern feminism really wants equality, if it is concerned with the welfare of only one sex. <<
For homicide, conscription and insurance, at any rate, these are deeds perpetrated by or decisions made by male-dominated groups. For something like sexual assault, this is a deed perpetrated by a mostly-male group against a mostly-female group. If women seem 'concerned with the welfare of only sex' it may be because the other already has the power structure in place (if not the societal freedom/acceptability) to handle many of its issues.
“For homicide, conscription and insurance, at any rate, these are deeds perpetrated by or decisions made by male-dominated groups.”
That’s true. Sometimes I see anti-feminists complaining about female violence against men, but the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by men so I find their complaints weak. But since the victims of violence are often (mostly?) male also I find it difficult to accept the modern feminist narrative of patriarchal oppression of women.
Having said that maybe I’m getting ahead of myself since I haven’t read any modern feminist books and I’m just going by what I read on blogs like this! As it is I already have a PRO-feminist reputation on another discussion forum where many of the members are a wee bit less… “modern” than us!!
For the moment, though, I’m all gung-ho for individual freedoms, which includes the political, economic, educational and sexual freedoms once denied to women. I feel that much modern feminism has, however, moved beyond calls for freedom, often calling instead for increased regulations and even stirring up resentment and unhappiness.
“fewer women in high political office, higher risk of sexual assault,”
to me, that should read:
“negligble gender-representation”; thus absences in policy
initiatives toward addressing parity of esteem. As
stated above the lowest % of gender representation
in ireland is of the 20-40 age group of women, making
for a huge cultural absence in political discourses, most
especially in the Justice areas.
Its pretty evident in lack of a decent justice policy regarding sexual
crime and individual rights and is discussed by Abigail Riely on this
blog. Having attended debates on issues re Criminal Law (Sexual Violence)
in 2006, I can state that not one woman TD spoke at the debate on
June the second 2006.
I do not think the issue is about aspiring to ‘high political office’ but
of having a voice in societal approaches to issues of moment. Ireland
has an appalling approach to parity of esteem, and whilst Dr hakim
may irresponsibly encourage a culture of feminine dependence,
she clearly does not value women’s contribution – or indeed how she
achieved her singular talking-head status
=mostly through the struggles of women like my mother who paved the
way for academic and employment freedom of wome in ireland.
I am a female engineer and I frequently get asked what it’s like to be a woman in engineering. Pretty much the same as being a man in engineering is the answer, except that men arent constantly asked what its like to be a male engineer. I think that the main cause of the gender pay gap is that most women seek men who earn as much or more than them (explained below). The fact is that most women choose men based at least partly on qualities that are associated with high earning potential, whereas men do not generally take those qualities into account when choosing women.
Women without children tend not to face any significant barriers in the workplace. Women obviously need to take some months off when they give birth, but a few months shouldnt make a massive difference over the course of a career. Many women choose extended maternity leave or even career breaks when they have their children. That’s fine, if you want to sacrifice a few years of your career for the pleasure of staying at home, good luck to you. but women who choose this need to realise that they have made this choice and their career will not advance and may move backwards during those years.
When both partners are ostensibly working full time, there is still the problem of childcare, particularly for sick children. Creches wont accept a sick child, so unless you have alternative childcare one partner will have to stay at home. The logical choice is for the partner who earns least to stay at home. Because in general women choose men who earn as much or more than them, it is usually the woman who earns least, so the logical choice is for the woman to stay at home with the sick child.
In some circumstances a higher paid woman actually chooses to stay home with a sick child letting her lower paid partner go to work. She may think that she is doing this because she cares more about her children than her career (because she is a human being) but she may not recognise that by making this choice she is putting her partner’s career ahead of her career.
In some cases the higher earning woman is even manipulated into staying home by her lower earning partner.
The solution as i see it is simple. My advice to people of either sex: if you want to have a really good career as well as a family, choose a partner who cares less about their career than you do about yours. If, on the other hand you want to have the choice to stay at home with the kids or go to work, choose a partner who is ambitious and cares about their career a lot. But please realise that by doing so you may well be sacrificing your own career by removing your option to work full time.
if you want to have a really good career as well as a family, choose a partner who cares less about their career than you do about yours
I have a couple of friends who are trying to do this, but the pool of men who care less about their careers but aren’t total slackers is very small! There is a much bigger pool of women who care about their jobs and careers to some extent, but are happy to let their careers take a backseat. With men, it seems to be much more likely that they really, really don’t see working, having a career or being ambitious as values, or they automatically expect that their career will take precedence. For women who want a partner who does care about their career and has a professional identity of their own, but want their career to take precedence, the pool is veeery small.
It also isn’t quite as simple as you’re making it out to be, though – one of my friends is in a partnership where her (male) partner was the primary carer once she’d finished her maternity leave, and his work found it incredibly hard to cope with. They didn’t have any precedent for a man asking to go part time and negotiating time off around childcare, and they had to be incredibly, incredibly determined to make it work. She said many times that it would have been so much easier to slip into the “normal” pattern, and it was only the fact that they probably couldn’t have afforded to that kept them at it.
Fabulous post, Eleanor. I would urge anyone who hasn’t yet done so to read Peggy Orenstein’s ‘Flux’: http://amzn.to/gpdQF2 . She’s a New York Times journalist who interviewed hundreds of woman in their twenties, thirties and forties and analysed their attitudes towards kids, work, sex, marriage; the works.
It’s a fascinating and often sobering read which hasn’t dated at all (Flux was first published a decade ago); and though it’s based on interviews with American women, the issues remain relevant for first-world women everywhere.
I first read it when I fitted into the first category of women in her structure: just thirty, unmarried, going full-tilt at my career. A decade and many changes on, it still has me nodding frantically on most pages. She’s on twitter too at @peggyorenstein. Anyone who knows me is welcome to borrow my copy. And no, I’m not on commission – I just think it’s a really important read
Thanks Sarah! Looks fascinating. I will get hold of it.
“What should happen is that society should reorganise itself to allow for more flexibility, thus facilitating the needs of all.”
Great article and I think Eleanor’s point above sums it up aptly. This needs to be an all-inclusive discussion, not just about the needs of women (and specifically women with children) but all members of society. The structure of life is gradually changing for everyone and the rigid, linear, 5-day working week just doesn’t do it for a lot of people, male and female. Many people are no longer satisfied with having to commit a massive portion of their lives to jobs/careers they may or may not enjoy. They want to do other things like travel, run a small farm, spend time with their family, write a novel or just simply be. More and more people are craving the opportunity to express themselves through a variety of outlets and not simply through one career-driven channel.
For example, I don’t have children, but I work a 3 day week at a job that I quite enjoy and which pays the bills. But I’m not prepared to commit any more of my life to it than that. The rest of my time is spent in pursuits which may never bring me financial reward, but which are vital to my remaining sane and fulfilled.
The whole advent of the corporate world as we know it today is patriarchal – but that really isn’t to say that it suits men and not women. Many men’s values have changed over the years now that they have greater freedom to play non-traditional roles. And there are also women who are genuinely fulfilled by the traditionally male ascent through the corporate ranks. What society needs is choice.
As for Hakim’s research, one would have to question how broad her survey group was – I haven’t looked into it beyond Eleanor’s article, but it sounds like it might have been done in Orange County. That said, there are lots of very traditional women and men out there. That’s fine, but the way Hakim presents it gives the impression that most women think like that, and that’s neither true nor helpful to women or society in general.
Thanks Sarah. You are so right that the pursuit of wealth can take over and that if you can pay the bills in 3 days and free up the other 4 to do things you enjoy then that is a wonderful way to live your life. Well done.
Great article Eleanor. It is maddening to see the decision faced by mothers about work and careers put in such an old fashioned way, pitching those who choose to “marry up” so that they can stay at home against those who choose to have full time careers. That’s not the reality as I see it, most families do the most practical thing for them at a point of time and this can and should be fluid. I personally am choosing for the moment to work as a freelance “portfolio” worker, taking on as many projects as I can manage within the time constraints I set myself. I am just as professional and committed as when I worked full time, I just happen to work a shorter week. Technology has made this so much easier (access to email while out and about, etc).
I went through college, my MBA and my working life with the intention of working full time and climbing some career path. However, I feel that none of us can take responsibility for flying some idealogical flag. We must make the right decisions for ourselves and our families. I would hate to be at home full time and having worked full time with a small child, would prefer not to that for the moment too. I’m really fulfilled by the work I do now. I FULLY respect other women who make different choices.
It is true that setting up a business can be a great way to achieve the flexibility many people (men and women) crave.
Finally, I think many of us may have met when we were young enough to have a clue as to whether our partner would be better or worse off than us and cared less.
Exactly Pauline, well said. When I met Andrew I earned considerably more than him, now he earns more than me. Shoulder to shoulder is how we’ve always stood, money or not.
Thanks Pauline. You are so practical and clear in your thinking and have found what sounds like the ideal solution for your circumstances and that is what it is all about. Also I know from past experience what a wonderful asset you are to any workplace and how effective you are at getting things done and done extremely well!
“Employers take note – mothers are brilliant and efficient multi-taskers who make the most of the precious hours available.”
This to me suggests that we don’t need any kind of new legislation, or any societal reform.
You argue that mothers make great employees, but who aren’t presently being used to their potential. Businesses seek to make money. If mothers are excellent employees then I assume many businesses will deliberately seek out mothers and employ them, thereby generating greater profits.
There is some evidence of this kind of thing happening already, with American companies in South Korea taking advantage of (alleged) Korean sexist attitudes that have relegated highly-educated women to low-paying jobs. The Americans simply see excellent employees at low cost, so talented females are snapped up. This gives the American firms competitive advantages over the sexist Koreans. What happens next? Perhaps the Korean firms will respond by offering females better opportunities. Global capitalism in this instance could destroy much discrimination as the hunger for profit makes prejudice undesirable: no intervention or social reform necessary.
If you think the market operates that way. But if you think the market is perfect as a system for seeking out talent and promoting it, what is your explanation for, say, the disproportionate number of white people in top jobs?
We know that employers subconsciously discriminate: there has been study after study that shows that people with names which would be associated with white people get more interviews with an identical CV with a name associated with an ethnic minority group. The market is a long, long way from perfect.
In theory this in turn creates a profit incentive for unbiased businesses to deliberately seek out non-whites for employment, and use that to outcompete their prejudiced competitors. But maybe you’re right that economies don’t work that way. (One bizarre implication is that businesses need to be MORE GREEDY, more concerned with profit and less with race, sex, etc.)
I wonder if such discrimination is becoming much less profitable as economies become more globalised. As I pointed out with the Korean example, a small local region may discriminate against a subsection of its society for a considerable period, but outsiders may not and as the markets increasingly cross borders these prejudiced organisations become less and less profitable.
Anyway we had this discussion here before, regarding the apparent underreporting of female musicians in music magazines. I said again that if women are being ignored then there is an untapped market, a big fat opportunity for profit. The solution is bottom-up entrepreneurship, not top-down regulation.
(Incidentally I argued once with some anarcho-capitalists that we may need state intervention in the market to fix various “market failures” as I saw them. They told me instead that I sounded like an entrepreneur, since I was able to see apparent gaps in the market! I was stumped, didn’t know how to respond!)
Really great article (as always), Eleanor. Women not working outside the home is an economic disaster for the nation, as well as a social and feminist issue. The lucky ones who can maintain a part-time career while child-rearing have a responsiblity to speak up for the not-so-lucky ones. i.e. I can easily be a part-time writer, but it would eb impossible to be a part-time politician.
Thanks so much Clare. I agree so much about solidarity and speaking up on behalf of other women. Also networking is essential.
Great Post Eleanor, I feel the same about the workplace, would love to have a job that I actually got paid for but there simply aren’t flexible enough options available to me that are compatible with how I want to raise my kids. I’m self employed from the home now but I find it a lonely road.
As for ‘marrying up’, that might have been a good move where money’s concerned but instead I settled for the broke but talented guy I fell in love with. No regrets.
Thanks Jenny. Frustrating isn’t it! Love triumphs over money every time although both is kinda nice so why not let us earn some too.