feminist orthodoxy in the government

[brum]

I take your point WoD, though these attitudes may be down to other influences exerted upon them as they worked hard to achieve individual career success in a male dominated environment. And whichever gender a boss might be, they may still feel a sense of loyalty to the system that put them there, even though that system may be flawed.

[womanofdulwich]

Some women are just plain bitches though..............

[brum]

Well, not all women are good managers, just as some men aren't. I still believe though that if we had more women in senior positions we would see less discrimination in the workplace.

[womanofdulwich]

You are probably right, it is a generational thing. When i finally made it to being a partner at the age of 35 I was the only woman under 55- and the other 2 women were 55-60 had no children - and the condition to be made a partner was that i had to work full time. I don't think either of the other women were particularly helpful and the most sympathetic person was a immediate superior whose wife had had a baby about the same time as me. Maybe if you are 30 now there are more supportive women at management level.

[Huguenot]

"and the condition to be made a partner was that i had to work full time"

Come on, does this sound wrong?

A partner takes a share in the business, part timers don't take an equal share in the workload!

This isn't discrimination, it's a righteous rejection of a freeloader!

I think that sometimes people are deluding themselves. Work isn't a 'right'. It's a provision of goods and services to someone else in a manner that they find attractive and valuable. The key is what 'they' find attractive and valuable.

If it was what 'you' find attractive and valuable then you'd never find a buyer. For crissakes stop pretending the world owes you a living.

This craving for legislation is simply ducking the issue.

I agree with Brum, the world would be a better place etc., business would be more effective etc. This is about education NOT legislation.

[womanofdulwich]

I should clarify not an equity partner an associate partner- no equity involved. I do not think they owed me a living. I made the decision.I worked full time for 2 years.

I have never been an equity partner-but surely your share of equity can be split to reflect the hours you put in- say 80% of what a full time person would have for 4 days a week ?

At the time it did not sound wrong Huquenot, it was the way it was and if I wanted to make it up a level ( through that glass ceiling)there was no alternative. I think nowadays it might be easier to work less than full time-and be a partner? a lot is covered by the phrase " works from home one day a week". I think this applies for a lot of men as well as women.

[Huguenot]

Sure, and of course I'm not talking about your particular situation, I'm taking about government and legislation.

It just seems irrational to me that anyone can expect to take a leadership position in a company by only working when it suits them.

Leadership requires many attributes ranging from engagement to shared endeavour that can't be demonstrated adequately by taking Fridays at home (or off). What kind of message is this sending to the rest of your workforce?

It's because of this plain and obvious truth that some people want to make it a gender prejudice issue and then 'force' companies to promote them.

Frankly, if someone suggested this to me I would seriously consider whether such arrogance and duplicity has any place in a company I ran.

If someone wants to work flexible hours and they have a value to my company then I'd try to come to a negotiated solution that met both our needs (Fridays off never would).

If someone tried to tell me I was obliged to indulge them, and then tried to 'force' me to promote them I'd fire them.

I actually can't think of any family requirements that can be delivered by having Fridays at home unless the indidvidual is not working. I can think of many family obligations that could be achieved by alternating lates starts or early finishes with one's partner - however most requests don't reflect this, which is because Fridays off probably isn't about family obligations. ;-)

[brum]

I feel that the issues over taking Fridays off is a distraction from what is really much more important: how much employers value their employees. I am a firm believer that the most important asset of any business is the people it employs. If you invest in their needs, rather than see them simply as commodities, the business will reap it's rewards. I would much prefer an employee who is happy to come to work and feels valued (and not just in the financial sense) than one who works just to put food on the table.

[Huguenot]

Totally agree chap, but the thread's about feminist orthodoxy in government - which is about intervention and legislation.

I can't identify any possible government which can make people value other people. Will they also make people love you?

You're talking specifically about productivity ("the business will reap it's rewards"), of which the government doesn't have a clue.

What you would prefer for employees is besides the point.

If you want to feel warm, lovely and included then go live in a teepee in Devon. If you want to be rewarded for providing goods and services, then provide goods and services.

[legalbeagle]

Huguenot - sorry but I still think you are so wrong.

Legislation: I'm not a believer in unneccesary legislation either, but forcing companies to consider a flexible working request has actually worked very well. It has made people put their individual prejudice to one side and consider a different way of working, and I know many employers that have been pleasantly surprised at the results. My last job is a very good example of that. Positive discrimination has also worked. Briefly forcing companies to put different minority groups in senior positions means that the view at the top is very quickly changed to one that is far more diverse and draws on many different talents, making it more flexible and adaptable. You can then revert to promotions purely on the sake of merit and again I've seen many companies have a permanent change of culture for the better as a result.

Loving your job: I also think you are very wrong to think that business and profits are solely about money and are not affected by human emotion. It has been demonstrated many times that people who feel part of a team, appreciated, "warm and lovely" as you put it, are more productive and more loyal. They go the extra mile. They feel that the business is worth extra efforts because they have a sense of belonging. They begin to care about its success and failure beyond the impact on their next pay packet. The company, its well being and its personnel begin to really matter on a human level as well as a profit line. You really are missing a trick if you think that part of employment isn't worth bothering with - managed well it can bring huge rewards. Read "predictably irrational" by Dan Ariely for a very good explanation of this with lots of well summarised studies showing why this economic theory is very interesting. You have spoken before about freeloaders and people just taking what they can from their job. Has it ever occurred to you that your way of employing encourages that reaction in them? If you treat them like robots - no more than a drone providing goods and services devoid of a sense of worth or belonging (your description) then they may well react by simply taking what they can get from you too. Why treat you like a human being if you don't do the same? Attitudes filter down from the top.

[Huguenot]

On the legislation side I think equating an aversion to part time workers in senior positions with racism is hyperbole to the point of ridiculousness. It deserves a Godwin's.

Also I think 'forcing people to consider' is moronic law. "I've considered and the answer is no". Same result.

You quite simply miss the point on business and profits, and your argument is confused. Businesses are only about profits. What you actually seem to be saying is that the business can be more profitable / effective if the employees are happy.

I don't doubt this. Quite the opposite. I full heartedly support it and make it an absolute foundation to my own business.

Your comment "Has it ever occurred to you that your way of employing encourages that reaction in them?" seems to be suggesting I have a Victorian attitude that I don't. I have already told you that we don't even have an office, that my employees all flexbile work from wherever they want (their bed if they choose), that their remuneration is linked to the success of the company and they they have clear and identifiable objectives.

My employees are mainly deliriously happy. I'm proud that my way of working creates that reaction. The fact that I fire lazy idiots makes them even happier. Most people hate whiny greedy 'world owes me a living' types staining the coffee bar with their whinges.

In that sense I've ticked every one of these petty boxes. However, you appear to have put your hands over your ears and said 'la la la not listening la la la'. I would hazard that this habit may have a more damaging effect on your career than your requirements for flexible working.

This thread is about legislation, it's about government (or at least that's the title).

Govenrment and legislation have absolutely no part in the creation of successful businesses through the law to support part timers. Part time working is not about gender discrimination and not about racism. It's about good practice.

[brum]

The fact is, legislation won't necessarily make someone change their cultural beliefs. What it does do, however, is make people face a problem, rather than just carrying on regardless. I have been an equalities trainer in my job. I know full well you can't force someone to change their views. It's all about saying 'ok, here's the legislation that underpins everything (eg, Disability Discrimination Act) and here's the reasoning behind it...' By presenting the issues in a common sense, practical way, you CAN change peoples views. Without the legislation being there in the first place, it's highly unlikely such a dialogue would take place at all.

[Huguenot]

So now we're equating part time working with racism, gender discrimination and topping it off with disabled rights?

It is errant nonsense, but requires some nerve to be righteous about it.

Let's make it absolutely clear. You want to work fewer hours, only when it suits you not the company, you want more resonsibility, you want a pay rise and a promotion ahead of workers who work full time and meet the comapny's needs.

Instead of recognising the ridiculous nature of these demands you start talking about racism and disabled rights, how the world revolves around your needs, and how you're going to make a law to force the company to give you everything you want.

That's just a mugging mate, and nothing to be proud of.

[SeanMacGabhann]

you keep calling them "idlers", they are entitled to come back at you with inflated arguments

[Huguenot]

I'm teasing about the idlers, but I've clarfied the argument for you ;-)

[legalbeagle]

"In that sense I've ticked every one of these petty boxes. However, you appear to have put your hands over your ears and said 'la la la not listening la la la'. I would hazard that this habit may have a more damaging effect on your career than your requirements for flexible working."

Wow Huguenot, that's just rude. And it says more about you than anything else you've posted. I haven't put my hands over my ears, it's just that I think you are wrong. Sounds like you don't like being told that very often and given that kind of aggression, it's probably time you and I agreed to disagree. It's well known that if you resort to personal insults, you've lost the argument. Shame.

[brum]

Huguenot, either you are being deliberately obstroperous, or you actually do take all things literally and misconstrue the most simplest of arguments. I hope it's the former!

[Huguenot]

You think that I'm being rude legalbeagle? Try this direct quote from you:

"Has it ever occurred to you that your way of employing encourages that [negative] reaction in them?"

That was a direct attack, and entirely inappropriate. Apart from making out that the impact of working practices don't 'occur' to me (a professional slur), I've already said that '[my] way of employing' matches everything you've asked for and more. I'm just saying (and repeated so often it's getting my goat), that you can't impose this approach through legislation.

You may not give a monkeys about that, but I'm sure you can understand why I'd get annoyed at your apparently wilful misinterpretation of my position?

Brum, there's nothing getting misconstrued here - I agree (and have agreed many many times on this thread) that flexibile working practices and engaged, motivated workforces are hugely beneficial for companies. I believe I even said quite clearly earlier 'I agree with Brum'. I simply don't believe it can be delivered through legislation.

I had to repeat that then just for you too! Can you see why I'm getting annoyed?

If you need to go back, then read the title of this thread which is about government, the OP which is about legislation, and the post which dragged me in which was about using force on businesses to impose flexible working.

All that you've requested is a matter for management schools, MBA courses and senior management. If you're lucky you may be able to negotiate directly, but don't be surprised if you don't get treated as a special case: after all, if you bring sweets into the classroom you've got to bring enough for everyone.

[Huguenot]

I mean, come on legalbeagle, you'd have to close Green and Blue if you were advised that opening in the evening was discriminating against employing women with children!

What if all your employees decided en masse to apply for the hours that they wanted, and none of them chose evenings, and the law supported their case?

You'd be bust.

[legalbeagle]

Huguenot - I'm sorry to hear that you think I was rude to you. That wasn't my intention. As for the rest, I'll stick with agreeing to disagree.

[niledynodely]

legalbeagle Wrote:

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

> 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.

Hi Leaglebeagle thanks for your reply - I like very much what you say about the role of women. I am not sure about the extent to which the government can really help out with the childcare issue...I know that it is really good in Denmark but even there it is only after the first year. Also they pay really high taxes to have the system which they have and they have a very small population and country which makes it difficult to compare to us. I am trying to work out where I stand which is I suppose why I started this post.

I don't think we could be stopped working - even by omission - too much of the world depends on us for that to happen. But I don't think that I agree with the feminist agenda that there should be equal number of men and women at the top levels as I explained in a previous post. There are women who make a conscious decision not to have children because they love their work or career so much and it seems to me those women can get to the top just as men can. Other women choose to have children and to put work in second place and in some way I think this type of mother and the above career woman has more in common with each other because we have both made choices and had to sacrifice something. Of course there are women who have kids and a proper career but either they are super efficient, special, organised people or else they are prepared to hand over the childcare role to someone else - but either way they are in a minority so I don't see how we can expect to see so many women at the top.

About men and women and whether they choose the same type of employment I found something in the Telegraph March 30th - annoyingly I can't find it on the internet but it explains "women are more likely to work for a cause and men for money, according to a new study. Researchers found that women were 10 per cent more productive when their work was linked to something they cared about. Men showed no increase in productivity whether they worked for a noble cause or not. Scientists said men's attitude of working for monetary gain explained why they were paid more because women were attracted to work in lower paid sectors such as health care, education or charity" (reported by Richard Alleyne from findings of the Royal Economic Societ's annual conference).

I am not sure whether you are very much in favour of the equality agenda but as I was mentioning about women and work I got onto it.

[niledynodely]

apenn Wrote:

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

> 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

Hmmmm - I don't fully support Brums post - although i generally support it. I think i am keen to know if there is anywhere where women and men both participate equally in both realms. I just can't imagine women handing over the childcare role so whole heartedly to their partners...speaking personally I suppose I like help with childcare...lots of it preferably but I am not sure if I would be prepared to hand over my primary role. Maybe I am exceptional in that... I would be interested in other women's views on that subject....

re what a penn said ...I don't think we can assume that men have pigeoned themselves in that particular role. There some very interesting gender arguments which suggest that women are at the heart of society and they have given men status as a way of sorting of keeping them on board. Mothers need all the help they can get...men don't and if they don't have incentives like status then they will just wander off into the wilderness. In those sorts of arguments status has been given to men by women (perhaps their mothers ?) ...as for power well I am not too sure about where that resides...sorry ... apenn said not to take it too literally which is exactly what I went and did, but I think maybe what I am suggesting is that sex roles are not just determined by the social and cultural context in which we live and are unlikely to change as wholeheartedly as some would wish for....

[niledynodely]

Hi Heft

Well I wanted to find out if I was really alone in thinking the way that I do and I think that I am!!

"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"

I don't think it's a choice between working and not working...most women all over the world through all times have worked ....but as i keep saying I don't expect to have the same career as someone without kids - and I don't feel any resentment about that

Women absolutely tend towards roles such as

> teachers because it fits in with picking our kids

> up from school. However this is changing. >

I don't think women just tend to those roles cause of history. I think there is biology involved too and women do tend towards caring roles...I just did a quote earlier from a telegraph article I found about how women choose caring professions...and I think there is some sort of tendency there that won't change that easily. I realise of course women can and do do all kinds of things ...I am talking about generalities.

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.

I really disagree with this...I think we are unequally represented because the majority of women all over the world through the ages have prioritised childcare and therefore few have striven to be at higher levels of the workforce. And it seems to me that when women do strive to be there - they get there! There might be lots of discrimination going on (e.g assumptions that women are going to take time off, prioritise their children etc) but I see that sort of discrimination as understandable and perhaps very frustrating but not necessarily unjust.

Is Motherhood a problem? Yes I suppose it is, how

> sad. I dream of the day when just parenthood will

> be a problem!

Well that borders on the tragic! But I suppose it is what would happen if people en masse decided that the world of work and politics was more important

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.

I am interested to know...I don't work for a business and I am not a career woman and I get the feeling you are ....in times of recession and when businesses have enough challenges anyway isn't it really impractical to have all the flexible working practices and maternity and paternity leave etc? Isn't that just going to make it more difficult for everybody? I certainly wouldn't vote in a woman MP just cause she is a woman. I might vote her in cause I thought she was a good MP. I think putting women in artificially will make for trouble in all kinds of ways. We will start feeling (if we don't already) that the women haven't got there entirely on the basis of merit which would be extremely frustrating for those who had got there entirely on merit. Also the women MPs we had didn't give women a good press...when Blair wanted a really grotty job done (like try to push through casinos)he gave it too a woman - I got the feeling that women weren't prepared to stand up to him as they should have done (career too important?). And how can there be 50% of women on boards when there aren't equal numbers of women to choose from? It just means that those who got there wouldn't be so good.

Oh and also the women who are in parliament are totally different from me - they have prioritised their careers and handed over their childcare to nannies, and i wouldn't trust them to represent my views one bit. At least your old fashioned politician might have had a wife at home thoroughly linked in with the real world of families and ordinary people - the world the politician is supposed to be representing - and she would have been able to tell him what to do - your woman mp doesn't have that...

Well if you thought you had had a good rant before....

[KatsuQueen]

But working isn't just about a career though, is it? I work, and the money I earn pays for MiniKatsu's nappies, food, the roof over his head and the shoes on his feet. How would I feed him? Grind stones from the street and mix them with water to make gruel? Beg on the street? Also, who will feed and clothe ME when I am at home with my child?

Sorry, I am making a rather extreme statement, but "caring" for a child is also providing for him/her - and in the real world, that means money...I don;t mean extravagant clothes and lifestyle etc, but someone somewhere is paying for it!

Also, the pressures faced by men being sole breadwinners shouldn't be underestimated. The commute, dealing with horrible bosses, the day-in-day-out grind...that's not great either. A friend once said to me (a long time ago), how lovely it was being at home with her child and how much better it was than the world of work. She just looked at me blankly when I said - yes, but don;t you feel guilty that your husband has to work full-time and will never be able experience this?

[Moos]

It strikes me that one of the difficulties is that we are a country moving or being pulled in a couple of different directions.

In one corner, we have the mores of business, which are often referred to as Anglo-American - here, presenteeism and the long-hours culture are all-important, socialising after work is vital for progress and flexible workers are at a natural disadvantage. In America, maternity leave is 6 or 8 weeks. Equality there really means sameness - there are few maternity (or paternity) benefits. I read somewhere (sorry, cannot find it now but will try) that in America women are more strongly represented in senior positions, and the conclusion that the study drew was that European women's legislative rights in some ways strengthen the glass ceiling.

In contrast, UK mothers have entitlements to long maternity leave with some pay, similar to (although in some ways less than) women in European countries. But in many other European countries (and I need to be careful here, as this is mostly perception and anecdotal evidence) working hours are shorter than in the UK, and it is seen as normal and not detrimental to a career for people to spend their evenings at home.

I think a lot of the tension arises from trying to work a legislative set of rights that fits with a culture of putting family first within a working culture which prioritises long working hours and drinking with work buddies.

That said, all of my comments above tend to suggest that working mothers are all business people with careers, which of course is nonsense. Most working mothers work because they must (and KatsuQueen makes a very good point above) in order to pay for their families to live, as throughout history people have. Would it be fair to say that 150 years ago all mothers worked other than those who didn't have to - and those hired nannies?