feminist orthodoxy in the government

[niledynodely]

I was interested in this article by Minette Marin http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article7060971.ece#comment-have-your-say

where I found the following paragraph:

"Harman?s thinking, like the feminist orthodoxy in the government, is based on the following assumptions, which have always seemed quite wrong to me.

First, that all women want to work (for money, outside the home). Second, that all women, including mothers, ought to work. Third, that all women want to do and are equally suited to doing the same work as men. Fourth, that if the number of women working in an organisation is less than 50% of the total, that is in itself evidence that women are being unjustly discriminated against. Fifth, that motherhood is a problem that makes it difficult for women to work. Sixth, that the problem of motherhood can easily be fixed by paid childcare, subsidised if necessary by the state. Seventh, that what all mothers want above all is ?affordable childcare? to enable them to work: children don?t need much of their attention. And finally, that it is for the state to sort out all such family matters"

I would really like to know what truth there is in these assumptions and so have translated them into 8 questions. Any responses to any of the questions would be much appreciated!

1. Do you want to work (for money, outside the home)?

2. Do you feel that all women including mothers ought to work for money outside the home?

3. Do we tend towards health, teaching, social or people oriented types of work because we prefer it or because that is the main option available to us?

4. Do you think men and women are suited to doing the same types of jobs?

5. The unequal representation of women at higher levels of the workforce ? is this a result of unjust discrimination?

6. Do you see motherhood as a problem which makes it difficult for you to work?

7. Do you think the problem of motherhood can be easily fixed by paid childcare subsdised if necessary by the state?

8. Do you think it is up to the state to sort out such matters?

[????]

Harriet Harman knows what's best for you, me everybody...she's just one of those awful busybody people.

Tha answer to 8) is NO by the way.

[smallblue]

errr... shouldn't that be Harriet Harperson?

[Jeremy]

To be honest the article raises some good points, but the bit which stuck in the throat a little was the implication that men and women are not suited to doing the same types of jobs. I really don't think you can make those sorts of generalisations.

[PeckhamRose]

The 'problem' of motherhood. Hmm!

I also need a definition of the word 'work'. One of my jobs I would do for free and often do.

But when it pays it's suddenly more respectable and means more.

Sometimes I work for years on a project and it may never see the light of day or someone may come along and pay me for it. It's still work but it's also my life!

Everything is so compartmentalised in society, even the meanings of words. Sometimes I know I do not belong in these worlds where people put me in to compartments or types, and make expectations on what I should do and be and feel and think. If it weren't for the need to earn money to pay for my life I'd be happy not working and just travelling for ever and ever. My mate thinks that too and we are different genders!

[louisiana]

niledynodely Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was interested in this article by Minette Marin

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist

> s/minette_marrin/article7060971.ece#comment-have-y

> our-say

>

> where I found the following paragraph:

>

> "Harman?s thinking, like the feminist orthodoxy in

> the government, is based on the following

> assumptions, which have always seemed quite wrong

> to me.

> First, that all women want to work (for money,

> outside the home). Second, that all women,

> including mothers, ought to work. Third, that all

> women want to do and are equally suited to doing

> the same work as men. Fourth, that if the number

> of women working in an organisation is less than

> 50% of the total, that is in itself evidence that

> women are being unjustly discriminated against.

> Fifth, that motherhood is a problem that makes it

> difficult for women to work. Sixth, that the

> problem of motherhood can easily be fixed by paid

> childcare, subsidised if necessary by the state.

> Seventh, that what all mothers want above all is

> ?affordable childcare? to enable them to work:

> children don?t need much of their attention. And

> finally, that it is for the state to sort out all

> such family matters"

>

> I would really like to know what truth there is in

> these assumptions and so have translated them into

> 8 questions. Any responses to any of the questions

> would be much appreciated!

>

> 1. Do you want to work (for money, outside the

> home)?

There's all kinds of assumptions there already.

Want vs need?

Home-office-based workers? (e.g. consultancy of many kinds, writers and editors)

I would love to say I don't want to work *and* I don't have to. But I do have to work, though I don't want to. And I work from home.

[SteveT]

4. Do you think men and women are suited to doing the same types of jobs?

Men aren't much good carrying for the full 9 month term,

and women aren't very good at being sperm donors.

So I believe, but I could be mistaken.

[niledynodely]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To be honest the article raises some good points,

> but the bit which stuck in the throat a little was

> the implication that men and women are not suited

> to doing the same types of jobs. I really don't

> think you can make those sorts of generalisations.

Well I know that you get women who can do men's jobs just as well or better than men and vice-versa but in general terms we are different from each other aren't we? Like women do tend to work with people more (e.g if they are in a business often they are in HR) and men more with things (engineering,plumbing building etc). And I don't think those differences are just because of culture and sexism and stuff. Also I notice my male other half like if he gets treated badly he just brushes it off and carries on whereas I would be inclined to say I would never work with that person again and I think that is perhaps a 'gendered' response - women might take things more personally. Also another thing I notice is that men don't have as many problems disagreeing with each other as women do...all those things I think could affect suitability for particular types of jobs??

[womanofdulwich]

1. Do you want to work (for money, outside the home)? yes because i want money to buy nice things.

2. Do you feel that all women including mothers ought to work for money outside the home? only if they need money and it is financially viable- no point working for money if you have 3 children under 5 years old unless you are on Nicola Horlicks type salary.

3. Do we tend towards health, teaching, social or people oriented types of work because we prefer it or because that is the main option available to us? Most of these jobs are public sector and they are more accommodating for women to work child friendly/flexible hours.

4. Do you think men and women are suited to doing the same types of jobs? There is a tendency but that is all.

5. The unequal representation of women at higher levels of the workforce ? is this a result of unjust discrimination? no because woman generally see their role as mothers and sacrifice their careers to be at home with children. A lot of women do not want the higher level jobs as they have enough to manage out of the workplace.

6. Do you see motherhood as a problem which makes it difficult for you to work? Not a problem a privilege. It is up to each mother to see what works best for her.Being a mother is work, just unpaid. It is not a problem just that you cannot expect everyone else to change to what suits you as a mother, especially as your needs continually change until your children leave home.

7. Do you think the problem of motherhood can be easily fixed by paid childcare subsidised if necessary by the state? There is not a problem with motherhood, cheaper good quality childcare would assist many to work but a lot of women do not want to work. However if women do not do some work once their children are at school they get out of the habit and find they lose their skills and confidence to do so. However working outside of school hours is a huge problem for many parents.

8. Do you think it is up to the state to sort out such matters?Not to sort out such matters as such but they could help enormously by encouraging more women to do some kind of work within school hours once their children are at school. They could force schools to have before and after school care schemes and holiday play schemes. They could withdraw some benefits but this would be very hard and mean that some women had even more children. Many women do not work for 12 -18 years and it is very find for them to find work which is purposeful.

[niledynodely]

Hello womanofdulwich - thank you very much for answering all those questions - I am interested in finding out how other women view things because I often get the feeling I am way out of line with other people and want to find out if that is really the case.

Like you I don't think that inequality is about unjust discrimination...there is exactly inequality for the reasons you give. But because of that I don't understand why the government go to such pains to ensure equal representation of women at all levels. If you have only got a very small pool of women applying for the very high powered jobs why on earth should there be equal representation at all levels? If the govt insist on it as HH seems determined to do we will probably end up with women being unfairly promoted.

With question 8 I am really puzzled by how withdrawing benefits would lead women to having more children? I don't get that. I don't see why the state should encourage women to work. It seems to me that there is a huge really important role to be done in the home and community and if more of us were around I think children would be a lot happier. (by the way I agree with most of what you say but I am just picking on the bits I disagree with cause I am contrary and find disagreement more interesting). And I also don't think extended school are a good idea because I think it is hard for children to spend so much time of the day outside of the home. The children's society did a really good report 'A good childhood' and I think that one of the things that came out was the children wanted their parents to spend more time with them.

I really like what you say on number 6.

[niledynodely]

louisiana Wrote:

>

> There's all kinds of assumptions there already.

> Want vs need?

> Home-office-based workers? (e.g. consultancy of

> many kinds, writers and editors)

>

> I would love to say I don't want to work *and* I

> don't have to. But I do have to work, though I

> don't want to. And I work from home.

Hi Louisiana - they aren't my assumptions though. I think those are the assumptions of women in government. I get the impression they think we all actually WANT to work when actually we HAVE TO and if there were things that could be done so that we didn't HAVE TO work (particulary when our children are very small) that would be great. For example - I think it was Frank Field he suggested that if we got many years of child benefit condensed into for example the first 3 years of our child's life - and then didn't get it later (when they were bigger and it was easier for us to work) - that would be really good cause we wouldn't have to work when we didn't really want to. I get the impression the government are working on the wrong assumptions and that is what I want to find out.....

[sillywoman]

Replied via PM.

[KatsuQueen]

1.Do you want to work (for money, outside the home)? Yes.

2. Do you feel that all women including mothers ought to work for money outside the home? No.Everyone is different.

3. Do we tend towards health, teaching, social or people oriented types of work because we prefer it or because that is the main option available to us? I don't know. I work in a male-dominated field i.e. engineering. When I was growing up I never felt that any options were "closed" to me, maybe to do with my upbringing?

4. Do you think men and women are suited to doing the same types of jobs? I think some physically demanding jobs may be more suited to men than women, and some jobs require more empathy which women generally better at.

5. The unequal representation of women at higher levels of the workforce ? is this a result of unjust discrimination? I don't think it is straightforward discrimination but there is a perception that childcare is the "duty" / responsibility of the woman. If you work part-time, you are seen as not being 100% committed. If you work full-time (or at all) you are seen as a woman who has abandoned your children. Yes the dreaded "career woman"....

6. Do you see motherhood as a problem which makes it difficult for you to work?In my case it hasn;t been a problem, mainly because of understanding employers. But I know people who are trying to get back into employment and finding it very hard. It's not easy but I don't think motherhood is easy for anyone, whether you work or not.

7. Do you think the problem of motherhood can be easily fixed by paid childcare subsdised if necessary by the state? Motherhood is not a "problem" so cannot be "fixed" by money or anything else.

8. Do you think it is up to the state to sort out such matters? The rules about employers keeping your job open for a year has certainly worked in my favour. And subsidised childcare would be great for me. So from purely selfish point of view, yes, more incentives for mothers working outside the home, please!

I don't think of myself as a feminist, but I wouldn't be happy to stay at home and look after my son until he reaches 8 or 18 or 35 or whenever the childcare experts say that he doesn't need me anymore. Maybe in some people's eyes that makes me a "bad" mother, yeah whatever. Sorry if that sounds harsh, I think this is a "no-win" situation. If you work, bad. If you don;t work, also bad. As far as I am concerned, "happy parents = happy children".

[legalbeagle]

1. Do you want to work (for money, outside the home)?

Yes when my kids reach school age. For the time being I work from home when I can.

2. Do you feel that all women including mothers ought to work for money outside the home?

Absolutely not.

3. Do we tend towards health, teaching, social or people oriented types of work because we prefer it or because that is the main option available to us?

I didn't, and I don't know many women who have, but that may not be representative.

4. Do you think men and women are suited to doing the same types of jobs?

Yes - provided that they are physically strong enough for certain jobs.

5. The unequal representation of women at higher levels of the workforce ? is this a result of unjust discrimination?

Not necessarily. However a lack of women at senior levels can lead to an unbalanced management view of a company that can sometimes lead to discrimination, so it can be a circular situation. Sometimes you need to just put a few women further up the company to address that issue and then the balance redresses itself. In that sense positive discrimination can be a briefly helpful tactic.

6. Do you see motherhood as a problem which makes it difficult for you to work?

No, I see it as a blessing and a privilege that I hope employers will help me to acommodate so that I can be economically useful as well as continuing the population and helping the pensions crisis!!

7. Do you think the problem of motherhood can be easily fixed by paid childcare subsdised if necessary by the state?

Not a solution for everyone, but it's helpful for some.

8. Do you think it is up to the state to sort out such matters?

Yes. We should encourage people who want to work to do so. We should not have half the population being economically unviable. We should try to assist those who need to work, whether or not they want to.

[womanofdulwich]

My answer to question 8 is that for women who do not work but claim beneifts other than child allowance you could take some beneifts away to force them to work but theymight just go on to have more children to stay in that circle ( and I am sure a small number do ). But if you withdrew benefits you would be hurting the children too. When my children were small I would go into school on my days off for the odd morning to help children read. Perhaps the mothers that dont work dont have the skills to do this though? Its a shame that life is so compartmentalised and there cannot be a community type answer.

[niledynodely]

I see what you mean and you are probably right about that ...it is very tricky. But I do think that all the things we do while we don't work (like reading to kids in schools) should get more recognition.

[niledynodely]

I want to reply to leagle beagle and katsu queen ...I'm a bit short of time (got to get something done for work!!), but just very quickly what most grabbed my attention was the idea of being economically unviable...you must have seen all those articles which have costed all the things which women do if they don't go to work. But even then I dont think things should have to be costed to be of value....I think that women who don't work outside the home contribute in all kinds of ways...I honestly think we would have healthier communities if there was less emphasis on women working...I haven't worked it all out and am being a bit hypocritical and will think these things through more properly tomorrow....

[legalbeagle]

Niledynodely - I would completely agree that there is an economic as well as social value to what women do inside the home. Aside from the obvious caring roles, there are plenty of things that we do voluntarily and/or within family networks that have value. I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. My point was only that I think women should be enabled to earn money if they want to, and if the only thing that prevents them doing that is a child care issue, then it is a legitimate role for government to assist with that issue. I also think it is a mistake for a country to prevent women working, either actively or by omission, since we do actually need some proportion of the female population to work in paid roles and to earn money. But I would not for a minute say that the work women (of which I am one) do in the home has no economic value. Nor would I say that one has to have an economic value to be of worth. A good example is education - the old saying that if you educate a man you educate a person, but if you educate a woman you educate a family, has some truth in it. A woman who can teach her children manners, self respect, social awareness, good diet, exercise, music, reading, a sense of the history and culture of their country, develop a curious mind and direct a lot of young energy does huge social (well as economic) good.

[brum]

Sorry if I'm butting in, but I think the role of the man should also be considered here. Its almost seen as a 'given' that us blokes will be the breadwinners and hardly contribute anything else to the upbringing of our own kids. However I think there is greater willingness amongst men to take an active part in the upbringing of their children and we are not content to just leave it to the women any more. Raising a child is a dual responsibility and, family finances permitting, either parent should be encouraged to work, or stay at home, if they so wish. I feel that society in the UK sees this step as too radical and so the status quo prevails, where the woman is expected to stay at home - thereby contributing to the frustration felt by women that their roles are not valued.

[apenn]

With regard to questions 3 and 4, this gets to that old debate about nature vs nurture. The issue that needs to be addressed is that regardless of where you stand on these questions there should be equality of opportunity for all genders for all jobs and types of work. The role of government (question 8) is to create and regulate an environment that enables this. Not an enviable task!

With regard to Brum's post above - fully support the general message of your post, however it could be argued that since men traditionlly hold the "power" in our society, it is men that have pigeonholed themselves into their roles and women's roles are "inflicted" upon them. (Please don't take this too literally!) Men can choose to stay at home (albeit with society generally looking sceptically at their choice). Often if one parent is going to stay at home, the man returns to work because he was earning more. And why is that? Mother's who want to work can face a lot of obstacles getting into or back into the workplace. I think what it comes down to for both genders is the need for - here it comes - good work-life balance.

-A

[Huguenot]

There's a weird crossover between government, society and family unit here.

I'm not sure anyone is entitled to a free ride. Sensible advice would be not to engage in procreation unless you have an economic partnership that allows for both childcare and resource generation. It doesn't matter whether this is hetero or gay, or whether it's mum or dad that takes either role.

The expectation is that mum does the childcare, based on gentic prejudice.

I think there's a social obligation to mitigate for prejudice, and we employ government to legislate to endorse this.

However, I don't think we should pay for childcare to allow mums back to work - because it shouldn't be mum specific.

So then the real question is whether you should pay for childcare at all, and I fiercely believe that it's not the role of government to tax me so that someone else can have the joy of kids. Parents? Thieves and ingrates the lot of them.

I should add that this is different to universal healthcare, education and welfare - which I see as an economic benefit and a social obligation.

Clearly having kids offers national benefits as well - but frankly you don't pay people to do something they'd do anyway!

Hence a 'feminist orthdoxy' in government is only well placed if it challenges prejudice, not if it starts spanking cash on some female jolly.

[legalbeagle]

I wouldn't disagree with above comments about the role of men raising children - but the original question was about the role of women in the family.

Huguenot "I fiercely believe that it's not the role of government to tax me so that someone else can have the joy of kids. Parents? Thieves and ingrates the lot of them."

Interesting view, but you do benefit economically from avoiding an ageing population, no?

[Huguenot]

Sure thang, as I mentioned...

Clearly having kids offers national benefits as well - but frankly you don't pay people to do something they'd do anyway!

I kind of reckon that's common sense. The fact that people think they should get cash bonuses for it rankles my 'they reckon they're entitled to it' button. Hence 'ingrates'. Here's a bonus for breathing...

Mind you, this is about a feminist orthodoxy in government, and kind of got diverted into 'do women want to work and should they when they're looking after kids'. My bad.

I've seen several mums go (really) nuts when the kids get themselves into bad situations, never seen a dad do it. I think we have to accept there are gender differentials.

[Heft]

The phrase "a feminist orthodoxy in government" is pernicious in it's use here by Marin. Do we refer to the hundreds of years of parliament in Britain before 1919 when there was no women MP's as a period of "patriarchal orthodoxy in government"? No we don't.

Women weren't allowed to vote let alone stand to be MPs. People who get all uptight about the ideas of all women shortlists - or as is being discussed here - putting women into the top roles of the workforce are always forgetting that men only MP shortlists and men only top jobs *were* the only kind up until the twentieth century.

Good for you if you're happy doing what you do niledynodely. Here are my answers:

1. Yes I want to work very much. I really couldn't stay sane as a mother without it. But I know it's different for everyone.

2. Of course Mothers and Fathers should be able to stay at home if that is their choice.

3. Women absolutely tend towards roles such as teachers because it fits in with picking our kids up from school. However this is changing. The liberation of women has only happened in the last 100 years and I for one, despite expecting a 50/50 split of all responsibilities in my house between me and my partner, am not in any way surprised that things aren't quite equal out there in the rest of the world yet.

4. Men and women are suited to doing whatever jobs they would like to do. History has set us all on a certain path and society still walks down it, but it's changing...

5. The unequal representation of women at higher levels of the workforce is a result of unjust discrimination yes, among millions of other reasons. Not least, as I've said, that men have the jump on us by hundreds of years. But Government taking seriously the fact the imbalance is there is very important.

6. Do you see motherhood as a problem which makes it difficult for you to work? I think this question is phrased in a bit of a difficult way. If you are asking if being a mother makes it harder to work then the answer is of course yes. It could also seem that you're asking if kids are an inconvenience for someone with career plans, which seems a bit of a loaded question. Either way I have seen my career grind to a halt because I don't work full time. I don't find this at all fair (or sensible for my company to waste my skills in this way).

7. Do you think the problem of motherhood can be easily fixed by paid childcare subsidised if necessary by the state?

Is Motherhood a problem? Yes I suppose it is, how sad. I dream of the day when just parenthood will be a problem!

8. Yes it's up to the state to sort this out, and do you know why? Because if you let us do it for ourselves it'll take forever. Businesses weren't going to give men and women flexible working hours unless forced to. Annoyingly people aren't going to vote-in more women MPs unless they're given all women shortlists, just like women wont be voted on to 50% of Boards of big companies - even though few of the people voting would admit to being sexist. If you can't achieve equality through the system as it is now then you have to change the system.

And can I add that the sooner maternity leave is allowed to be split equally between men and women the sooner women will face less discrimination at work.

Thanks for the great thread. Yours rantily etc etc

[Huguenot]

"Either way I have seen my career grind to a halt because I don't work full time. "

This is what I can't sympathise with.

Of the many elements that influence employment decisions, experience is up there at the top. If you're not working, you ain't earning it. It's not because of prejudice - you just don't have anything on your CV that says 'I can work 8-6 five days a week'.

Bleat about 'potential' all you like, but in the end an employer needs to know that their staff are committed. A brilliant track record in working when it suits you doesn't provide this.