Women Equality Men
Today, women have gained a new equality with men. This perspective is indisputable’
This review explores the contemporary literature on the theme of ‘women and work’ in the light of the suggestion that women have indisputably gained a new equality with men. Overwhelming evidence has been found for the persistence of gender inequalities which work to disadvantage women in the context of work, including domestic work, although it is clear that providing explanations for this phenomenon has shown that the issue is complex and highly contested. It is argued that a redefinition and re-interpretation of the inter-dependence between paid and unpaid work, care and leisure is needed.
There seems no doubt that in order for there to be a greater measure of real gender equality, male identity, in particular, must beer-examined and changed. It seems clear that research and policy are focusing more on the ways in which caring, in particular, is perceived and constructed in gender terms. However, in order to effect real change in gender equality, it is argued that there must be recognition of the myriad of ways in which both masculinities and femininities are constructed and interact with each other in this complex field.
Chapter One Introduction
The focus of this literature review is upon the theme of women and work within the context of the premise that women have gained an indisputable equality with men. Whilst it seems, in theory, more ‘equitable’, to have included commentary and research in equal amounts from men and women, an exploration of the literature revealed a far greater contribution to the debate from women than from men, perhaps by virtue of women’s perception of their own disadvantaged position, and this bias is consequently reflected in the variety of sources cited.
Literature search was conducted within a University library database, using the search criteria ‘women and work’ and ‘gender equality and work’ and this yielded access to a selection of books and articles. The sources selected for inclusion in the review were restricted to those which specifically focus upon gender differences and inequalities in the realm of work, defined in its widest sense to include that undertaken within the household as well as work in the formal labour market. Due to the plethora of writing and research in this field, the decision was made to restrict sources to those produced within the last ten years, thus maintaining a contemporary focus, although references are made to earlier works.
Chapter topics reflect the themes which emerged from the literature. Chapter Two presents a historical overview of women’s employment and the major ideology by which it has been underpinned in British society together with the ways in which the different patterns of employment between men and women have served to disadvantage women, particularly in economic terms. Chapter Three explores women as employees in more depth, particularly the ways in which organisations, occupations and spheres of work are profoundly gendered and how this, again, seems to work against women, although it will be shown that this is a contested area.
The focus in Chapter Four is upon domestic labour and the ways in which its traditional construction as ‘women’s work’ has been strongly contested. The different ways in which work is itself construed, in both the traditional world of work and the private domain, sets the scene for a change of emphasis. The literature reflects a movement, in Chapter Five, from a concentration upon the inequalities and injustices heaped upon women through patriarchal structures towards a redefinition of the key issues through an exploration of the increasingly blurred distinctions between paid work, unpaid domestic work, care and leisure.
A reinterpretation of caring and how this may be incorporated into the discourse on gender and work has been highlighted. It is argued that there is a clear need for more serious account to be taken of the lived experiences of both men and women, to celebrate, rather than denigrate, gender differences and to strive to understand the ways in which such differences are constructed in ways which may disadvantage both men and women.
Chapter Two The nature and extent of women’s employment
Many commentators have noted the different ways in which women and men have organized their lives together and how the work that each undertakes has changed and developed over time (Crompton, 1997; Hatt,1997). Crompton (1997) describes how the gender division of labour originated from, and was profoundly reshaped by, the advent of industrialisation in Britain.
By the turn of the 20th century, men became increasingly associated with paid or market work, whilst women were identified with the household and non-market work. This trend became intimately connected with an ideology of womanhood which effectively served to exclude women from ‘market’ work. As Crompton asserts, the male-breadwinner model emerged from the ideology of ‘separate spheres’ in which “the home and domestic sphere was defined as belonging to women, whilst that of the outside world - including the workplace – was defined as that of men” (1997, p.8).
There seems little doubt, as will become clear later in this review, that assuming the main responsibility for household tasks and child-rearing has had a significant impact upon women’s participation in market work.
The idea that this responsibility is somehow ‘natural’ can be said to underpin many family-related explanations for women’s behaviour in the labour market, however, this is clearly a contentious issue. Those who support the view that the gender division of labour manifested in today’s society is rooted in biological differences between the sexes include Hakim (1995; 1996) and Browne (1998).
Hakim (1995), for example, sets out to explain the particular patterns of women’s employment in Britain and how they are distinct from those of men. She draws on findings from the socio-biological field which cite male traits of aggressiveness, dominance and competitiveness as rooted in hormonal differences between men and women. These natural masculine traits are seen as instrumental in the disproportionate participation and success of men in the employment sphere.
In similar vein, Browne (1998) argues, that biologically influenced sex differences in behaviour have important ramifications for the occupational choices made by men and women in the working sphere and their differential employment patterns.
Whilst clearly decrying outright sexual discrimination, Browne suggests that “much of the glass ceiling and gender gap is the product of basic biological sex differences in personality and temperament acting in the context of the modern labour market” and that these differences are the product of “differential reproductive strategies followed by the two sexes during the course of human evolution” (1998, p.5). Browne argues that instead of denying the reality of these natural sex differences in the pursuit of socially constructed explanations for the ‘gender gap’, it will be more productive for feminists, in particular, to embrace them and incorporate them into future discourse about work.
Hakim (1995; 1996) is also critical of feminist commentators on women’s employment, such as Wallaby (1990), who have suggested that occupational segregation, the construction of women’s jobs as separate from men’s jobs, has been a mechanism through which women have been systematically denied access to jobs by men.
Hartmann (1982), as cited by Crompton (1997), described the rationale behind occupational segregation by sex as the mechanism through which men’s superiority over women is maintained by enforcing lower wages for women in the labour market in order ensure their dependence on men. Hartmann (1982) asserts that “men benefit from both higher wages and the domestic division of labour” and thus, the latter, in turn, serves to perpetuate women’s inferior position in the labour market (Crompton,1997, p.11). Hakim argues against this analysis, however, suggesting that the different pattern of women’s labour-force participation and work commitment is due to women’s choices according to their tastes and preferences. Hence, some women choose to give more priority to their domestic role and child-rearing and less to their employment careers, though, for example, working part-time rather than full-time or opting for less demanding occupations (Hakim, 1996).
Hat (1997) discusses the issue of gender and work from an economic perspective and points out that the labour resources of an economy include women and men engaging in productive activity in both the labour market and the household. The working population, however, is term most often used, particularly by economists, to describe those women and men who are engaged in paid employment, self-employment, in Forces, on work-related training schemes or registered as unemployed.
This effectively excludes all those women or men in the unpaid sector and full-time homemakers. Hat (1997) records that in1993, in the 16 to 64 age group, 71% of all men and 53% of all women were participating in the working population. The Equal Opportunities Commission report that in the same age group in 2004, over 83% of men and 70% of women were ‘economically active’ (EOC, 2005, p.8). Although caution is needed in comparisons between different sets of statistics, it seems clear that a larger proportion of men than of women participate in the working population but the gap would seem to be closing.
It is notable, however, that patterns of labour force participation by women and men are both distinct and different. Hat (1997) notes that, in 1993, for prime age male workers aged 24 to 49, participation rates were over 90%, declining after the age of 50. For women in 1993, the participation rate was 71% for the age range 24 to 34, falling to 54%for women with a child under 5 years old, increasing again as children enter school.
Similarly, in 2004, 52% of mothers with children under 5years old were in employment, of these women, around 66% were working part-time. Crompton (1997) observes that almost all of the increase in women’s employment in Britain from the 1950s until the 1980s was impart-time work. This trend is further underlined in the latest statistics in that nearly half of all women (44%) and about 10% of all men work part-time (EOC, 2005).
As the statistics show, clearly women are more likely than men to work on a part-time basis. Writers seem divided as to explanations for this phenomenon. Wallaby (1990), for example, has suggested that the expansion of part time employment represents a kind of capitalist, patriarchal conspiracy in which mainly male employers have secured women’s cheap and docile labour, whilst at the same time ‘freeing ‘women to continue undertaking domestic labour in the home. Crompton(1997), also, notes that “part-time work….has a reputation of being insecure, low-paid and with little by way of training or promotion prospects” (p.33). She cites Beeches and Perkins (1987) who suggest that certain jobs were actually constructed as part-time jobs because they were seen as ‘women’s jobs’, invariably low graded and rarely defined as skilled (Crompton, 1997, p.33).
Other writers, such as Hakim (1996), deny the assertion that employers have sought to construct ‘poor work’ for women, asserting instead that it is women themselves who have demanded part-time work to fit in with their other domestic responsibilities – employers have simply responded to meet this demand (Hakim, 1996). Evidence from research by Rubbery et al(1994), however, suggests that not only is part-time work less flexible than full-time work and of inferior quality, but also it has been developed largely to suit the needs of the employer. Since most part-time workers are women, it is women who are most affected by the disadvantages associated with this mode of work.
Chapter Three Women as employees
Hat (1997) traces the changes in the working population and employment patterns of men and women in recent decades, pointing out that whilst there has been a decline in male employment since 1980, female employment since that time has increased. She cites the official census data from 1994 which revealed that this latter increase was due to a greater proportion of mothers entering paid employment (Hatt,1997). It has been well-documented that within the labour market, women play a different role from men. As we have seen, women are more likely than men to work part-time and, as Hat observes, they also “work in different industries from men, occupy different positions even within mixed industries and are under-represented in senior positions”(1997, p.17).
Many commentators have noted that women are concentrated in certain industries and occupations, such as clerical work, catering, cleaning and caring work whereas men are more often found in the manufacturing sector and the construction industry, for example (Hat, 1997; Franks,1999; Moe, 2003). Even when women and men are found in the same sector, men tend to occupy the more senior positions with women more often situated in the lower ranks of the hierarchy (Hat, 1997; Franks,1999).
As Hat (1997) records, “women are under-represented at senior-levels throughout all occupational categories” (p.21). Crompton(1997) examines the banking industry, in some detail, as an example of the response to labour market demands for low-level clerical workers. She describes how this industry, along with others such as insurance and local government, helped “to generate a mass, feminized clerical labour force” (Crompton, 1997, p.107).
Both direct and indirect discriminatory practices against women within particular banks came to light and pressure from the Equal Opportunities Commission forced some important policy changes. Crompton (1997) acknowledges that there have been major changes to employment practices in the financial sector in general, in later years, as far as gender equality is concerned.
She cites structural factors, such as the demand for labour and the organization of the labour process alongside male exclusionary practices as the main contributors to the unequal position of female employees within the banking sector. She also concedes, however, that despite recent reforms, women continue to far outweigh men in occupying low-level positions in banking.
It is useful, at this point, to identify the key pieces of government legislation in the UK which have been designed to directly address the issue of equal opportunities between women and men. The first is these Discrimination Act 1975 which promoted the basic principle that men and women should not be less favourably treated by virtue of their sexier marital status.
The other is the Equal Pay Act 1975 designed to outlaw discrimination between women and men in the same employment, in pay and other conditions regarding their contracts of employment. This Act was later amended in 1984 to incorporate the Equal Pay for Equal Value principle. In addition to these Acts, the UK is also bound by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome to uphold European Community equal treatment and equal pay directives (Griffin, 2002).
The Equal Opportunities Commission, set up through the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, functions as the expert organisation on equality between women and men, its main tasks being to “work towards the elimination of discrimination; to promote equality of opportunity and to keep under review the effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts” (Griffin, 2002, p.11).
In the area of what has become known as the ‘gender pay gap’, it seems that, in general, the gap between male and female earnings has narrowed over the past 60 years, but the trend has been inconsistent. For example, female managers and administrators earned 55% of the annual earnings of their male counterparts on 1970, compared to only 33% in the mid 1920s (EOC,1999). However, this discrepancy narrowed by only 1% in this field of work between the mid 1950s and 1970. Since 1970, although this gap has narrowed significantly with women earning 63% of the pay of their male counterparts, compared to 81% for 1998, it was noted that “in all ethnic groups, men have higher average hourly earnings than women”(EOC, 1999, p.5).
This statistical evidence for the steady narrowing of the gender pay gap appears encouraging in terms of the equality agenda. However, as Griffin (2002) observes, there are other relevant issues. She records that, when we look at all sources of income, including earnings from employment and self-employment, occupational pensions, investment and benefit income, women’s income is significantly lower than that of men, apart from state benefits.
For example, figures taken from the EOC forth year 1996-7 showed that 45% of women had an income of less than£100 a week as compared with 20% of men (Griffin, 2002). More latterly, the EOC has recorded that the gender gap in terms of income has remained quite high, stating that “the gender gap between women and men’s mean individual incomes in 2002/3 was 46%” (EOC, 2005).
The EOC (2001) records that despite improvements in recent years, stereotyping remains evident in many professional occupations. Notwithstanding the evidence that greater numbers of women are entering certain professions, such as higher education or the law, women’s share of higher level jobs remains generally low. Certain professional and technical occupations, the ‘occupational segregation’ noted earlier, apparently continue to be heavily dominated by either men or women(EOC, 2001). Empirical studies, especially within the feminist perspective over the past two decades, have moved away from the study of organizational structures per se in order to seek explanations for this persistence in the positioning of men and women in the workplace.
Writers such as Pringle (1988), Chodorow (1989) and Halford and Savage(1995), for example, have instead demonstrated how specific kinds of masculinities and femininities, and discourses of gender, are constructed within the workplace. The emphasis here is upon recognizing the diversity of discourses on what it is to be a male or female employee and, ultimately, to avoid over-generalising about ‘all men’ or ‘all women’. One example of this is illustrated by Crompton(1997) in her exposition of different masculinities in the banking industry.
She charts the movement within managerial positions in banking from a need for solid, paternalistic men towards the requirement for a more competitive, assertive masculinity within selling culture. Crompton (1997), however, argues that although these discursive, ‘post-modern’ insights do much to enhance our understanding of the pattern of women’s employment, and the different ways in which gender is constructed in the workplace, structural or material explanations remain important.
Nazarko (2004) offers a contemporary analysis of the barriers faced by women in the workplace. She maintains that the drive for equal opportunities has hitherto failed to “challenge the premise that certain groups of workers such as women are less productive and less attractive to employers” (p.25) or the assumption that older workers, including women, are less valuable. Nazarko highlights the popularity of organisational initiatives which promote diversity and difference in the field of human resources.
Wilson and Iles (1999), for example, have argued that “diversity management improves recruitment, retention and creativity within organisations” (Nazarko, 2004, p.25). Nazarkocites researchers such as Rosner (1995) who have pointed out that women and men have different styles of working and managing. Women, for example, tend to use interactional styles in management, encouraging participation, sharing power and information and energising others. In contrast, men tend to use transactional styles, seeing pieces of works series of transactions.
Both styles are seen as equally valid and also, may be the preferred model for any individual, regardless of gender. It is argued, then, that both organisations and employees will benefit from initiatives which value diversity and difference, since people would be evaluated and treated as individuals, rather than asocial groups and associated stereotypical connotations. Nazarko(2004), however, fears that the diversity approach does not necessarily eliminate the power structures which persist in society. She argues that until female dominated professions such as nursing are valued as much as male dominated professions like the police force, it is difficult to see how gender equality can be attained.
Chapter Four Domestic labour – women’s work?
It is well-documented that the Industrial Revolution within the western world generated a distinction between paid work outside the home and unpaid domestic labour within the household. Men’s economic activity came to be focused upon paid work, hence the male breadwinner model, whilst women have commonly divided their working lives between the unpaid domestic sphere and activity in the labour market. Hat(1997) represents the feminist approach to this issue by highlighting the way in which women have long been disadvantaged, particularly in economic terms, by their traditional domestic responsibilities. Not only does their focus upon unpaid domestic task constrain their participation in paid work, domestic work itself “is an unpaid economic activity which has for too long passed unnoticed; the skills, which the successful homemaker acquires, go unrecognized in wage and promotion schemes” (Hat, 1997, p.50).
The terms upon which both men and women are able to participate within the labour market are very different and in this respect, it would seem difficult to argue for a level of equality between the sexes. Many commentators have noted, household and child-rearing duties weigh more heavily upon women than men and have traditionally been excluded from economic analyses of participation in work in the widest sense(Crompton, 1997; Hat, 1997; Franks, 1999). As Hat observes “household responsibilities and paid employment are both valid productive activities but they are not equally rewarded by society”(1997, p. 49).
DE et al (1995), in their analysis of the British Household Panel Survey in the mid 1990s, point out that very few men cited household or family responsibilities as affecting their labour market behaviour, whereas over 80% of women surveyed felt that their labour market participation had been adversely affected by these duties. As Franks(1999) points out, work has come to be synonymous with having a paid job and its counterpart is regarded as leisure.
Thus, other kinds of activity such as cleaning the house, doing the shopping, cooking and caring for children and elderly relatives do not officially count as work, although for those involved, it may actually feel very much like work. Underpinning the traditional sexual division of labour is the idea that men’s paid work is dependent upon a shadow economy of women’s unpaid work (Franks, 1999).
Thus, the increased participation of women in the formal paid workforce throws the spotlight onto the status of what had always essentially been regarded as a ‘labour of love’. Franks (1999) presents the example of widowed fathers who do not receive the lump sums, tax allowances and continuing state benefits received by widowed mothers. A missing father’s financial contributions recognised, whereas a widower’s deceased partner is considered to have had no economic value. One solution offered by some economists has been to officially regard this labour as a form of taxation whereby all of society benefits from it as if they were paying directly to the state (Franks, 1999).
Other commentators (Charles and Kerr, 1999); Morris, 1999) have also stressed that despite the contemporary rhetoric of equality between the sexes, the traditional ideology which divides men and women into ‘breadwinner’ and ‘homemaker’ is still very much alive. Charles andKerr (1999), for example, point out that even where there may have been certain egalitarian sharing of domestic tasks within couples initially, once children arrive on the scene it is almost always the case that the woman takes on the responsibility for child-care and household tasks whilst the man takes on the role of breadwinner.
It is argued that although, ostensibly, this arrangement may appear to be complementary relationship with roles being ‘different but equal’, there is a differential allocation of power which renders women disadvantaged. On giving up paid work outside the home, or taking on lower-paid, low-status part-time work, women relinquish their power and status, at least economically (Charles and Kerr, 1999). Having responsibility for decisions about food purchase, or other household necessities, cooking and childcare, it is argued, effectively constitutes the exercise of power by women in other people’s interests. As Charles and Kerr suggest, “most of them (women) carryout these tasks within a set of social relations which denies them power, particularly when they are at home all day with young children and are dependent for financial support on a man” (1999, p.192).
There is a large body of contemporary opinion, evident in the literature, which calls for a redress of balance between the fundamental economic inequity between men and women, particularly within the family unit which includes dependent children. Franks(1999), for example, suggests that there will never be genuine equality between men and women “if male identity remains unaltered and unpaid work continues to be shuffled off onto women” (p.4). Franks goes on to assert that in a market system where unpaid work is invisible, there is no incentive for men to change their identity to encompass low-status, financially worthless activity (1999, p.4).
Crompton (1997) presented her own analysis of the relationship between employment and the family with particular reference to the extent to which there has been any change in the domestic division of labour. She acknowledges that there has been some change, albeit very slow, and she cites research byGershuny et al (1994) who describe the process as one of ‘lagged adaptation’ in which changes tend to occur most often when women are engaged in full-time employment. Other researchers have found that although men, mainly middle-class men, have expressed a desire to become more involved in domestic and child care arrangements, there is little evidence that “equal” parenting is the reality (Lupton and Barclay, 1997).
A more recent briefing by the Equal Opportunities Commission observes that there are many ways in which education, the family and access tithe labour market interact to produce different opportunities for women and men and which result in both men and women experiencing discrimination by virtue of gender. In relation to women in particular, this briefing comments that “women’s work should beer-evaluated, so that it is no longer undervalued and poorly paid”(EOC, 2002, p.1). Hat, in her analysis of gender, work and labour markets, concluded that “the domestic division of labour would certainly seem to lead to social injustice and it is debatable whether it furthers the efficient operation of the economy” (1997, p.50).
Vogel and Pal (1999) present an interesting exposition of the connections between money and power and men and women within households. Their own research found that, in general, the partner with the greater income was likely to be more dominant indecision-making, with women partners in paid employment having greater power than those who work only in the home. There appear to have been few large-scale studies which have focused upon the experiences of social equality, or inequality, between individual members of the same household.
The research conducted by Vogel and Pal (1999) draws on typology, constructed by Pal (1989), of household financial allocation systems, constituting the female whole-wage system, the housekeeping allowance system, the pooling system and the independent management system. In the female whole-wage system, women were given their husband’s pay packet, and had sole responsibility for managing the whole household budget. In the housekeeping allowance system, the women were given a fixed sum for housekeeping expenses, the men having prime responsibility for other expenditure.
The pooling system was used where partners pooled their earnings and shared access to and responsibility for managing expenditure from the common, joint fund. Finally, the independent management system operated where both partners had independent incomes (usually dual-earner couples), each partner taking responsibility for particular items of expenditure, although this may vary over time.
Vogel and Pal (1999) conducted a survey, combined with interviews, of1,211 couples across six British urban areas, covering Swindon, Aberdeen, Northampton, Coventry, Rochdale and Kirkcaldy. Respondents, aged between 20 and 60 years, were questioned on the household financial allocation system which came closest to their own mode of household finance management. By far the most common system used waste pool which was adopted by half of all the couples surveyed, with the remaining half choosing one of the other segregated systems (Voglerand Pal, 1999).
The data was further analysed to determine the relationship between strategic financial control and access to money as a resource within the households studied. It was found that in the joint pooling households “joint management was associated with both equal strategic control over finances and also with equal access to money as a resource” (Vogel and Pal, 1999, p.143). In the female-controlled management systems, constituting just over two-fifths of the sample, a disjunction was found between control over finances and access to money as a resource.
The researchers highlighted their finding that even where ostensibly, these women had greater financial control and power in decision-making, significantly higher levels of personal deprivation were experienced by the women with the men more likely to have more personal spending money than their female partners, especially in lower-income families.
As Vogel and Pal observe, “where the opportunities for exercising financial power are heavily circumscribed by low income and by the husband’s expectation of personal spending money, ‘responsibility’ may be a more appropriate term than ‘control’!” (1999, p.144). This more detailed analysis presented by Vogel and Pal (1999), together with that of other researchers, such as Morris (1999), provides evidence for the ways in which patterns of gender and class inequalities tend to interlock to increase the differences between women and men.
A different perspective upon the issue of gender differences and gender equality in the arena of household work and parenting is provided bother researchers. Doucette (1995), for example, highlights the tendency for debates on this issue to become focused upon the relationship between women’s greater responsibility for household work and caring role, and their relative inequality to men in employment and public life. She argues that whilst this is an important issue, insufficient account has been taken of the “various configurations that gender differences may take within household life” (Doucette, 1995, p.271).
Doucette suggests that much of the literature on the gender division of household labour is situated within an ‘equality’ or ‘equal rights ‘framework, which itself, tends to be constructed through a masculine perspective. For example, she argues that a “male model of minimal participation in housework and child care” is pitched in relation to a “male model of full-time employment” (Doucette, 1995, p. 274).
Whilst it is clearly documented that women’s employment is compromised through the need for women, as a group, to balance their paid and domestic work, it may be argued that women and men cannot simply be ‘lumped together’ as two homogeneous groups. Doucette suggests that relatively scant attention has been paid to the differences among women and among men and also the changes in household tasks over time. For example, the various developmental stages and changing needs of children as they grow up elicit different demands and responses from parents.
Much of the commentary on the gender division of household labour and parenting work, as Doucette (1995) suggests, tends to be focused on particular conception of work. Whilst some of the gender differences found in the research may well be problematic and disadvantageous indifferent ways for both men and women, it is possible to address themes “simply differences which are neither deficiencies nor disadvantages” (Doucette, 1995, p.276). Doucet’s own research, for example, found that not all household tasks are perceived as ‘chores’ –particularly, child-care related activities which many experienced much more as pleasures rather than work.
The tensions between work and home, between parents’ own needs and those of their children, are often constructed as having one easy resolution, in terms of employment outside the home. The downside of difference in terms of women’s disadvantage in economic terms through taking part-time employment, for example, it is argued, has tended to receive too much attention. Thus, when women have stated their preference for part-time work, or “where women successfully negotiate favourable part-time working conditions, there is little recognition that this might possibly be something positive”(Doucette, 1995, p. 278).
In this analysis, then, caring work, particularly child care work, is conceived as undervalued, neglected or ignored altogether, having been subsumed under the tendency to situate it as a symbol of entrenched gender inequality. Doucette highlights the ambivalence regarding what actually constitutes ‘gender equality’ and which gender differences should ultimately be permitted to prevail. As Doucette suggests “just as there are varied meanings attached to household work tasks, there are diverse definitions about what it means to “share the household work or to be an “egalitarian” couple” (1995, p.279).
Doucette, then, calls for an ‘insider’ perspective on the issue of gender and household labour, in order to investigate and value how men and women understand and construct their lives. The findings from her own research suggest that it would be more productive to explore “gender differences and the disadvantages which follow from such differences…rather than arguing for equality between men and women within household life” (Doucet,1995, p.280). Furthermore, it seems we will also profit from redefining and interpreting the variety of caring work that takes place within households with children.
Chapter Five Blurred distinctions – the interplay between paid work, unpaid work and care
We have seen how labour market work and household, or domestic, work are essentially interconnected in ways which have served to disadvantage women, particularly economically. Glickman (1995)presented an exposition of the totality of labour which she saw as theatre-dependence between these two types of work, the market and household economies constituting two arenas within a larger structure of production and reproduction.
She stresses how work as employment is essentially embedded in other activities and relationships. Crompton echoes this point, suggesting that “any account of the expansion of women’s employment cannot be divorced from the wider changes taking place in the structure of employment as a whole” (1997, p.129). These changes include the decline in work available in the manufacturing industry, the shift to service employment, increased employment flexibility and diversity and, of course, the huge growth evident in the electronic and computer field.
As women engage in more paid work, their traditional role in carrying out domestic work and caring will increasingly need to be fulfilled through other means. Such work involves the creation of more jobs in areas such as take-away meals, crèches, nurseries and retirement homes which, by virtue of having been historically considered as ‘women’s work’, will be poorly paid.
This could be avoided however, if certain jobs were afforded a higher status through greater social protections such as holiday entitlements, regulation of working hours, sick-pay and pension schemes together with more family-friendly policies (Crompton,1997). In the arena of caring, the qualities and skills involved must be recognised as extremely valuable and essential to society as awhile. If properly regulated and organised, caring constitutes a source of worthwhile employment for both men and women. However, as Crompton (1997) and others have pointed out, these changes require shift in attitude on the part of men in particular which may not be attained easily.
Crompton asserts that men are particularly vulnerable in that they are “ill-prepared for the workplace and family flexibilities that are increasingly required today” (1997, p. p.136). Pal, also, comments that “it may well be that most men experience women’s growing success in all spheres as a kind of threat they are reluctant to acknowledge”(1995, p.191). Furthermore, men, in general, “are receiving very little support and understanding for the changes they are forced to undergo” (Pal, 1995, p.194).
While Crompton (1997) acknowledges that households, and families, are becoming more fragile as more women take up paid employment, she concludes optimistically that, on balance, “the gender division of labour between the sexes is becoming increasingly blurred, and with more egalitarian outcomes” (p.5).
The Equal Opportunities Commission produced a briefing in 2000 called “the work-life balance”, highlighting the theme of caring and work. It recorded that “in 1999, the employment rate for fathers and mothers in couples was 90 and 69% respectively” (EOC, 2000, p.3) and stated that “there is now a mismatch between people’s caring and parenting responsibilities and the demands of inflexible employment patterns”(EOC, 2000, p.1). The Commission emphasised the need for work-life policies to include flexibility in working hours, job-sharing and forms of leave which not only consist of annual, maternal and parental leave but also study leave and employment breaks.
Their briefing suggests that family-friendly policies are not widely available or evenly spread between the sexes despite the statistical evidence showing that a high proportion of both men and women are in paid employment and have caring responsibilities. In addition to the policies mentioned above, the EOCultimately called for “a reduction of long hours working; more encouragement for men to take an active role in parenting and greater protection from discrimination for carers and others with family responsibilities”, (2000, p.1).
The complex relationship between paid, unpaid work and caring is particularly illustrated by the situation of lone parenthood. At the turn of the millennium, the number of lone parent households was estimated to be over one million, and including about two million children (Perrons, 2000). In the region of 85 of all households were recorded as headed by lone parents, 905 of whom were lone mothers (EOC,1999).
The labour government’s response to these figures, derived in large measure from its concerns about lone parenthood costing the state around £10 billion per year, was to introduce the New Deal for Lone Parents in order to move them from welfare into work (Harman, 1997). Two associated policies include Fairness at Work (HMSO, 1998), designed to increase opportunities for women in paid work, and the National Childcare Strategy (HMSO, 1998) which aims to expand the provision and accessibility of high quality, affordable child care.
A critique of these government initiatives has included questions about the equitability between those parents who are subsidised for taking unpaid work, while others care for their children themselves entirely at their own expense. Perrons (2000) observes that whilst initiatives such as the National Childcare Strategy and the Working Families Tax Credit Scheme are likely to increase child care provision and help with child care costs for low-income families, there will continue to be nonfinancial care assistance for higher paid women or for those who choose to stay at home.
It can be argued, then, that these strategies only serve to perpetuate the ‘male model’ of work and employment and continue to ignore, and downgrade, the value of the domestic sphere and child care. The goal of affordable and high quality child care, for example, may be said to contain an inherent contradiction which, ultimately, perpetuates disadvantage for women.
Affordability implies low cost which, in turn, may be translated into low pay for those people providing the care who are, at present, overwhelmingly women! Unger son (2000) illustrates the circularity of this situation by noting that “it is usually women in low paid jobs who pay a high proportion of their wages to low paid, mainly female, childcare workers” (p.641). Perrons concludes that “as long as either individual or collective care is disproportionately supplied by low-paid female labour then class divisions between women will increase and gender inequity will remain”(2000, p.110).
Within the context of overall social reproduction, it seems clear that these issues may be resolved only through linking workplace equity and child care provision. Perrons (2000) points out that the distinctions between the two are far from clear-cut. For example, mothers in paid work have perceived going to work as a means of establishing social networks and maintaining their self-esteem (Perrons, 2000). Similarly, caring for people, such as organising play activities for children, or taking a child to the park, can be pleasurable and fulfilling.
It would seem, then, that, as Perrons (2000) notes, there is a need to consider how we may apportion people’s needs and the division of their labour more evenly between these activities so that everyone may benefit. Perrons (2000) highlights the efficacy of the Universal Caregiver Model, devised by Fraser (1996) which essentially advocates drawing upon the resources of those people in both paid and caring work which are presently untapped. “Formal hours would be reduced for those in paid work, enabling more people to participate in income earning “which would, in turn, “provide opportunities for all to share in care work” (Perrons, 2000, p.111).
McKee and colleagues (2002) also criticise public policy and stress that generally it has not demonstrated an awareness of the everyday demands on people, particularly parents, across the life course. They propose a new theoretical model of paid work, unpaid work and caring which they call ‘a caring cape perspective’ which takes account of the combined processes of caring and working in terms of the myriad of experiences of both parents both temporally and spatially.
They point out that care needs change as children grow and parents’ working and caring patterns also change over time. For example, care tasks become more complex as children go to school with attention turning to afterschool care and activities as well as school holiday arrangements.
McKee et al (2002) draw on the research of Adam (1995) who studied parents’ attempts to negotiate paths through their caring tasks overtime and spatially. Adam (1995) has observed a gendering of time in which men and women evaluate time and tasks differently and “this impacts on power and the ability to negotiate every day and longer term childcare work and plans” (McKee et al, 2002, p.907).
A caring scape perspective, according to McKee et al, takes account of the “complexity of spatial-temporal frameworks” through which a variety of choices about caring and working are mapped and shaped by people. It questions the association between female biology (pregnancy and childbirth) and feminized tasks, such as housework or childcare, and the equation that has historically been made between ‘naturalness’ and the caring duties expected of women.
McKee et al (2002) argue that future research into the theme of working and caring must seek to place time-space perspectives as central to ensure that the complexities of the everyday management of combining work and caring are fully explored. It seems that research seeking to uncover the persistent inequalities, both in the home and in the workplace, which leave women with the greatest responsibility for informal caring, will continue to be required.
Equally, however, there is also a need for research into the “structural barriers to caring experienced by men who would prefer to (or should) become more involved with informal caring in the home” (McKee, 2002, p.918). The concept of the caring cape, at least from a theoretical standpoint, would seem to provide a useful framework from which to analyse the myriad of lived experiences of the caring and working lives of both men and women. It places the time-space perspective as a central feature, encouraging development from a unit-dimensional to a multi-dimensional approach which, it is hoped, will generate more sophisticated and imaginative policy recommendations in this complex field.
Chapter Six Conclusion
This review of the literature on women and work began with an overview of the origins of the gender division of labour in Britain which focused on the emergence of the male breadwinner/female homemaker model of gender relations and its impact upon women’s participation in the labour market. Arguments for the connection between basic biological differences between the sexes and the persistence of gender differences both within the modern labour market and the private domain of the household were illustrated through the work of Hakim (1995; 1996) and Browne (1998). It is argued that whilst such a perspective should not be dismissed out of hand, the debate is a complex one. There remains strong evidence for the social construction of gender differences and deep-rooted patriarchal structures within our society which have systematically created and perpetuated gender inequalities to disadvantage women (Crompton, 1997; Hat, 1997; Franks, 1999).
The literature on women’s employment within the labour market (Chapter Three) has revealed contested views regarding the underlying explanations for the different patterns of labour force participation between men and women. Commentators such as Wallaby (1990), Hat (1997),Franks (1999), Griffin (2002) and Moe (2003) have argued that from an economic perspective, the labour resources within society must include both the productive activity in the labour market and that within the household and, furthermore, that the two are inextricably linked. Hat(1997) and Crompton (1997), for example, argue that patriarchal structures have played a central role in constructing the inferior position of women in the labour market, through such mechanisms as occupational segregation and part-time working.
Hakim (1995; 1996), on the other hand, presents a persuasive argument for women’s ability to make rational choices and decisions for themselves according to their own perceived needs and preferences. The persistence of gender differences in patterns of labour market participation, particularly in the huge growth of part-time employment and also in the context of well-established anti-discrimination legislation and numerous government initiatives to dismantle the barriers to gender inequality in the workplace, seems to add weight to Hakim’s argument.
The evidence presented in Chapter Three, particularly the analyses offered by Chodorow (1989), Halford and Savage (1995) and Nazarko(2004), for example, offers informative insights into the ways in which gender is constructed both between and within different occupations and labour market sectors.
There seems to be a strong case for a focus upon gender differences, rather than gender inequalities, and particularly the ways in which different masculinities and femininities are constructed and manifested in the workplace. Such a focus seems tube a more positive and constructive way to move forward in the arena of women and work. The crucial issue to emerge from the commentary seems to be the need to ensure that feminine constructions are as highly valued, within the discourse on gender and work, as masculine ones have been.
The increasing body of research into the issue of domestic labour provides overwhelming evidence that this area has been neglected, ignored and undervalued for too long. Research in this area has extended our understanding of work in the widest sense, and how the increased participation of women in the formal labour market has highlighted the status of unpaid household work, traditionally, as a ‘labour of love’ overwhelmingly performed by women (DE et al, 1995;Franks, 1999).
Some commentators have stressed the power differential between women and men, especially acute once the family includes dependent children. Charles and Kerr (1999), for example, highlighted the finding that ostensibly the breadwinner/home-maker and child carer model offers a measure of complementarity between the sexes. However, in reality, at least in economic terms, it seems that mothers, whether or not they are in paid employment, are denied power and status and therefore, are disadvantaged.
The pressure for a change in male identity and the dismantling of patriarchal values is very strong, as evidenced in the commentary by Lupton and Barclay (1995), Crompton (1997) and Franks(1999), for example, as well as implicated in the statistical information given in the many briefings cited from the Equal Opportunities Commission.
The interesting work conducted by Vogel and Pal (1999) regarding the economic systems adopted by couples within households is testimony tithe myriad of ways in which gender, money and power interact, largely, although not always, to the detriment of women. Finally, it is suggested that those researchers and theorists who focus attention on the diverse ways in which household labour, market labour and the caring role are perceived, constructed and lived by women and men seem to offer the most positive and constructive framework from which real change might be effected, to the advantage of both men and women.
Its suggested that, in particular, men and women are likely to profit, ultimately from a redefinition and re-interpretation of the caring work taking place within households and this will, in turn, bring about a qualitative change towards greater real equality between the sexes in the arena of work in its widest sense.
Browne, K (1998) Divided Labours: An evolutionary View of Women at Work, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London
Charles, N, Kerr, M (1999) ‘Women’s Work’, in Allan, G, The Sociology of the Family, pp. 191-210, Blackwell, Oxford
Chodorow, N (1989) Psychoanalysis and Feminism, Yale University Press, London
Crompton, R (1997) Women and Work, Oxford University Press, Oxford
DE, S, Clark, A, Taylor, M (1995) Household Labour Supply, Employment Department No. 43, University of Essex
Doucette, A (1995) ‘Gender Equality and Gender Differences in HouseholdWork and Parenting’, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol.18, No.3,pp.271-284
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (1999) At the Millennium, EOC, Manchester
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (2000) The Work-Life Balance, EOC, Manchester
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (2001) Professional Occupations, EOC, Manchester
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (2002) Women and Men in Great Britain: The Lifecycle of Inequality, EOC, Manchester
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (2005) Facts about Women and Men in Great Britain, EOC, Manchester
Franks, S (1999) Having None of it: Women, Men and the Future of Work, Granta Publications, London
Glickman, M (1995) ‘Why “work”? Gender and the Total SocialOrganisation of Labour, Gender, Work and Organisation, 2(2), pp. 63-75
Griffin, G (ed) (2002) Women’s Employment, Women’s Studies and Equal Opportunities 1945-2001, University of Hull
Hakim, C (1995) ‘Five Feminist Myths about Women’s Employment’, British Journal of Sociology, 46(3): pp. 429-55
Hakim, C (1996) Key Issues in Women’s Work, Athlone Press, London
Halford, S and Savage, M (1995) ‘Restructuring Organisations, Changing People’, Work, Employment and Society, 9(1), pp. 97-122
Harman, H (1997) ‘Childcare is part of our economic infrastructure’, Department of Social Security Press Release, July 15
Hat, S (1997) Gender, Work and Labour Markets, MacMillan Press Ltd, Basingstoke
HMSO (1998) Fairness at Work, Stationery Office, London
HMSO (1998) Meeting the Child Care Challenge: a Framework and Consultation Document, Cmnd 3959, The Stationery Office, London
Lupton, D, Barclay, L (1997) Constructing Fatherhood: Discourses and Experiences, Sage, London
Moe, K (ed) (2003) Women, Family and Work, Blackwell, Oxford
Morris, L (1999) ‘The Household and the Labour Market’, in Allan, G,The Sociology of the Family, pp. 211-226, Blackwell, Oxford
Nazarko, L (2004) ‘All work and low pay, part 2: The challenge of diversity’, Nursing Management, Vol. 11, No.3, pp.25-28
Pal, R (1995) After Success, Polity Press, Cambridge
Perrons, D (2000) ‘Care, Paid Work and Leisure: Rounding the Triangle’, Feminist Economics 6(1), pp. 105-114
Pringle, R (1988) Secretaries Talk: Sexuality, Power and Work, Verso, London
Rubbery, J (1994) ‘Occupational Segregation: Plus Ca Change?’, inLindley, R (ed) Labour Market Structures and Prospects for Women, Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester
Ungerson, C (2000) ‘Thinking about the production and consumption oflong-term care in Britain: Does Gender still matter?’, Journal ofSocial Policy, 29(4), pp. 623-43
Vogel, C and Pal, J (1999) ‘Money, Power and Inequality in Marriage’,in Allan, G, The Sociology of the Family, pp. 129-148, Blackwell,Oxford
Wallaby, S (1990) Theorising Patriarchy, Basil Blackwell, Oxford