Professional women getting squeezed out of careers by crazy long hours culture

It's really interesting. The long hours culture has filtered down from the high paying professions to the more middling ones. It feels like there's no escape atm. I don't see how it's possible for 2 parents to work 12+ hour days without loads of family support or enough money to afford a nanny. I think tackling work/life balance and flexible working for men sounds like a real step forward.

Can you give us a quick summary of why your blog is relevant to this discussion, perception? (I ask because MN has rules on self-publicising blogs - I think you're supposed to post in blogger's corner. Fair enough if your blog relates directly to long-hours culture and feminism, but not so good if you're just taking an opportunity to get clicks on your website.)

The long hours culture in professional careers is only one possible factor and if we're honest, affects a small part of the population (prof high earners being a minority).

The high cost of childcare and high housing costs resulting in long commutes, are probably factors that have resulted in far more women leaving professional jobs.
Add in long school holidays/short school days, inadequate wrap around care and inflexible employers - its a wonder any parent is still in viable paid work.

I know I've posted on this before because it's a bit of a hobby-horse of mine. There's a fascinating analysis of long-hours culture in the game design industry, and how it is in fact counter-productive: Robinson on crunch mode

So, the thing is, it's well known in management theory circles that long hours cultures actually lead to lower productivity. So if the economics don't stack up, you have to ask what function the demand for long hours actually plays. And I think it's one of social control. By demanding long hours of your employees you are asking them to demonstrate that they put the company ahead of everything else in their lives - partners, families, hobbies. And, on a feminist note, it also functions as a handy mechanism of social exclusion - people with caring responsibilities (which, statistically, tends to be women) can't demonstrate those levels of loyalty, so get excluded, even if they're damn good at their job. It's another mechanism (like deals done on the golf course, or masonic handshakes, or - still common in sectors of the banking industry - going to strip clubs) which functions to exclude various groups of people, women in particular.

It sounds like these women do not have a job problem, they have a DH problem. My husband changed his working hours when I returned to work and as the higher earner I was able to share home responsibilities 50/50. Surely this is fairer on both employers?