More things to do with surveys and research, in particular the Joseph Rowntree Trust!

[Jbr]

The Joseph Rowntree Trust have decided that women are responsible for men committing crime and not finding jobs! How is this, well women getting jobs has made men feel "displaced" in society ie they are no longer seen as providers and women are "taking" all the jobs. It also says that "men's work" (their words, certainly not mine) no longer exists, so men are having to do "women's jobs" eg supermarket, call centre instead of ship building and mining, so men are feeling depressed and suicidal.

For starters, there are plenty of jobs, it just depends what kind of job you want. Secondly, even being out of work is no reason to commit crime. I have been out of work numerous times both before and after having my little boy and I don't mug people or rob banks!

Thirdly, 35% of women do not have jobs compared with 10% of men, so there are more women out of work than men. But of course, it doesn't matter if a woman doesn't have a job does it, because women should be happy sitting at home all day!

I thought if someone committed a crime it was their own fault and they were just selfish scumbags, but I should have realised everything wrong with society is the fault of working women! I sometimes think the Joseph Rowntree Trust was invented purely to keep women out of work. Oh but we wouldn't be out of work, we would be "housewives" wouldn't we?

This "research" and surveys like it had better be funded out of private money by sexists with nothing better to do! It had better not be coming out of my taxes! Everyone has a right to an education and a job!

How can that be right???!!!! Indeed how can they even say that in todays, er, NON sexist society, even in the name of research.Who are these people, Jbr?
I have to say that I agree with one point, I do believe some men may feel they have become 'displaced' in todays society. But "HELLO" that's exactly what it is, TODAYS society meaning 'move on and deal with it'. Different jobs, different family set ups, different everything, if women have learnt to deal with these factors surely the opposite sex can too, no? Does it mean that ALL men secretly want a mother hen sat at home polishing furniture while they go out to do a 'manly' job at a 'manly' workplace...? PURRR-LEASE, oh bring back national service and hanging while we're about it shall we... If you ask me this so-called survey is the biggest pile of poo, where can I read it ii all it's glory?
(Ooo... this was a red rag to a pmt'd bull today I tell you!! )

That society with gendered roles shouldn't have existed in the first place, but then some people still live their lives on the idea that men do one thing and woman another, and no doubt they will be applauding this report.

I had to laugh the other day, when reading my local paper. Some man who was a "pig and proud of it" in his words, said a woman's place is in the kitchen or behind the bar. We can work but only as bar tenders!

Sorry, I found it in the local training centre (maybe the Rowntree Trust have a website?) - the same training centre which had an equal opportunities policy next to the report! Talk about a contradiction!

Am looking up Rowntree Trust websites right now, grrrrrrr........!!!!!!
Thanks,Jbr, for giving me a reason to vent my spleen, feel better already. Still can't quite believe it though, what rot!

Humph...found website but no details on the report, anyone any ideas?

It could have been an old report but it was on the noticeboard. I feel bad now because I have mentioned something nobody can get hold of!

I found this which is similar. If you go to the website and type in words in search, eg work, women, men there are loads of rubbish reports. They have interviewed say 20 people and then said this means "X".

"Young men's attitudes to gender and work
Relatively well-paid industrial jobs have been increasingly replaced by poorer paid service industry jobs which have often been targeted at women. Little is known about the impact that these changes are having on men and their attitudes towards themselves and the labour market. This study, carried out by Working With Men, talked to young men aged 18-20, about their experience of the workplace, and their attitudes and beliefs about 'women's work' and 'men's work'. The study found that:

Most of the young men said that they were poorly prepared at school for the workplace. Careers advice, family involvement and even work experience had been of limited value, combined with a reluctance on their part to accept any advice given.
All of the young men made a distinction between 'crap jobs' and 'career jobs'. They saw these jobs as occupying two different labour markets, and viewed 'crap jobs' as temporary and as primarily a source of money.
The majority of young men made very few distinctions between jobs for men and jobs for women. However, jobs were ruled out on the basis of pay and skills required and many of these jobs would be typically jobs done by women.
Young men, while being very reluctant to listen to fathers, teachers and other adults, were able to listen to and accept criticism and advice from brothers and others they perceived as having experienced similar difficulties and indecision.
For those young men who were in a circuit of 'crap jobs', college provided virtually the only route into a 'career job'. Many of the school underachievers saw college as a barrier, rather than a route to the job they wanted.
The researcher concludes that perceptions of masculinity affected their views of the male role, career decision-making, attitudes towards school and teachers, and their reluctance to seek help and advice. These perceptions must be engaged with if schools and others are to better prepare young men for the transition into the labour market.
Introduction
Up until the early 1970s there had been a 'natural progression' for most young men moving from school into work. Irrespective of educational achievement (and even brushes with the law), if young men stayed broadly within an acceptable framework of behaviour then work would be available to them.

Since the early 1970s the number of women employed has dramatically increased by over one-quarter while the number of men in employment has remained the same. This has reflected a shift in the type of jobs available, away from manufacturing towards service jobs. The sole male 'breadwinner' - keeping a family on one man's wage - is no longer the dominant family type. This loss of 'men's jobs' has not only affected men's involvement in the labour market, but also men's perceptions of what it means to be a man.

This project aimed to explore with young men, their experience, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about the current employment market, and their attitudes and beliefs towards 'men's work' and 'women's work'. This study concentrated on young men, in part, because they had emerged from other studies as those most reluctant to change their attitudes, while also being the most likely to lose out through the gender changes in the workplace. This study starts from the assumption that increased understanding of these young men's attitudes and experience could lead to interventions that both remove barriers for individuals as well as enabling wider attitude change.

School and regret
One of the most common themes emerging from the interviews was the regrets that the young men felt about school. They felt they had played rather than worked, had had a laugh and had not thought about the future. They now saw school as a missed opportunity. Many of the young men gave the impression that school, exams and what teachers said were of little importance, and the school curriculum had little relevance to their lives.

Notions of masculinity appeared to play a significant part in the majority of these young men's poor use of school. Having a laugh, resisting teachers' influence, acting tough and the displacement of emotions away from appearing weak and vulnerable were recurrent themes.

Preparation for work
The complexity of the transition from school to work makes information, knowledge and support essential for young people. Many of the young men had had a poor experience of this transition. They considered that they had left school poorly informed and with unrealistic views of the workplace. For many, work experience was extremely patchy and careers advice was regarded as unhelpful.

There was also often little involvement and help from their families. However, underlying these views was the fact that the young men themselves admitted that they thought they 'knew best' and were reluctant to take advice whilst at school.

Career or 'crap' job?
All of the young men interviewed made a very strong distinction between a 'career job' and a 'crap job'. Motivations for taking a 'crap job' were always financial, and the commonly held view was that such jobs were very easy to get and to leave. They never paid well, and included retail (such as supermarkets, fast food restaurants), 'picking and packing', small factory and agency work, and cleaning.

Interestingly, 'crap jobs' were very often the strongest motivation for many of the young men to return to college or to pursue a 'career'. Concerns that they would be in 'crap jobs' for the rest of their lives -always earning a low wage, working in poor conditions and insecure work environments - stirred them to think about the future, and about what they would like to do.

For those who were living away from their family home, it was harder to break this 'crap job' cycle. Rent, food and other bills meant that they were occupied with their needs tomorrow, rather than for the rest of their lives. Those more able to reflect and think about a 'career' usually had the support (or sometimes the impatience and pressure) of their families.

Asking for help
Emerging from these interviews was the lack of reflection, planning and help-seeking exhibited by the young men. There appeared to be a combination of: a reluctance to ask for help; an inability to find out in advance what a job or course would be like; an inability to take advice from others; an unwillingness to accept others' experience and a willingness only to learn from one's own experience. One exception to this was the young men's willingness to listen and take advice from older brothers or others who had a similar experience to themselves.

There appeared to be a general reluctance to use job centres, careers officers and even the newspaper to find jobs. They were seen as unhelpful, only having the worst of jobs or staff too rude to be of any value.

'Men's work' and 'women's work'
A significant minority of young men in the study (about a third) had fairly traditional views of domestic responsibilities; not surprisingly those with traditional views of the home also had traditional views of the workplace. However, overall, young men made fewer distinctions about roles in the workplace than in relation to domestic responsibilities. For the majority of young men in the study, most jobs in the workplace were seen as appropriate for both men and women. The overwhelming message was "if it pays enough, and I could do it, I would".

It was pay, rather than gender, that appeared central. Of course, many of the poorly paid jobs mentioned were traditional areas for women. Some of the young men did rule out jobs on the basis of their lacking the skills or characteristics which were thought to be possessed by women - 'caring' jobs and jobs that demanded patience. Certainly, the majority of the young men aspired to traditional male jobs (such as car mechanic, electrician and other trades), but others also expressed a desire to work with children and do youth work. There was little concern over what their mates would say about these types of jobs, though the reaction of friends did emerge as a concern for some.

Views on masculinity
When asked to identify the most important attributes and roles that defined a man, the young men were much more traditional in their thinking. Having a job, defending their family and being a good father were seen as central.

Ideas of masculinity ran through all the themes of the interview. Bravado, proving yourself a man, being 'cool', and showing how big a man you were through failure to do school work, were all recurrent themes, especially as the young men talked about the regrets they had about their school experience. Fear of failure was a common reason offered for not pursuing a career. Being patronised, talked down to, treated like a 'child' too often terminated careers interviews. Attitudes from others that suggested that decisions were not theirs to make brought harsh reactions. These and other comments reflected traditional 'male' attitudes towards making life decisions and self-sufficiency, and highlighted the difficulties many of the young men had in showing their vulnerability and uncertainty.

Conclusions
Transitions from school to work, from dependence to independence and childhood to adulthood, are complex. The experiences of the young men in this study suggest that more effective services and mechanisms to assist young men through these transitions need to be in place. Suggestions include:

The careers curriculum could be extended to include better understanding of the changes within the workplace and opportunities to reflect on masculinity, gender and their impact on the workplace (to enable young men to understand the way they may make decisions and choices and to limit the negative impact of these factors). This implies associated training for careers officers and teachers that includes the impact of masculinity on decision-making processes and career choice.
While schools have increasingly brought the workplace into the curriculum, this could be extended still further. Young men of 18-20 years, who had missed school opportunities, could be a very valuable resource for schools, providing a mixture of peer educator and mentoring for young men following a similar path.
Supporting parents (and particularly fathers) could have a disproportionate impact on young men's preparation for the workplace. Evidence from other work has found that many fathers see a role for themselves in preparing and introducing their sons to the workplace, but feel ill-equipped for the task."

It isn't exactly what I read today, but the themes are similar. Women are working and we are to blame for all of societies ills. This is the same foundation that said it hurts children for their mothers to work, but it is OK for dads to work!

Maybe I have missed something here, but I can't see where it says in this exert you have posted that working women are to blame for anything. In actual fact I think that this particular quote shows that the study is trying to support a change in attitudes toward "men" and "womens" work: "This study starts from the assumption that increased understanding of these young men's attitudes and experience could lead to interventions that both remove barriers for individuals as well as enabling wider attitude change."

What's to understand about the men's attitudes though. They are wrong and that is the end of it. And Joseph Rowntree are always printing contradictory "findings" saying we shouldn't work, and then they next week they say we should but we have to watch how the men will take it.

Hi Jbr,
Thanks for finding that, I'd never heard of them before but it said on the website that it was a Quaker run charity. I know nothing about this religion but is this and other reports you mention a reflection of their beliefs? Feel free anyone to shoot me down as like I say I know nothing about the Quakers BUT usually any religion / manufacturer / coporate entity that researchs anything usually has their own slant on things, don't they....? Maybe it is this that is coming through?
(Why do I suddenly feel I'm about to get beaten with a large stick, eek, really hope that's not seen as offensive because I do not mean it as such)

Lizzer, fair comment, and I think you're quite safe, I doubt there's any quakers on this board!

I'm not a Quaker but I understand that historically they have always challenged the wealthy status quo (Elizabeth Fry - prison reformer, for example) on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. This dates back to their own roots in being a persecuted religious minority in the 17th and 18th centuries I believe. Almost all of the big 19th and early 20th century social reformers have a background in religious non-conformism. Lizzer is right on the whole to suggest that faith-backed organisations have a specific faith/cultural agenda but I'll stick up for Quakers and say that they are more inclusive and less judgmental than most other Christian-based faiths. I think the Joseph Rowntree Foundation was set up to use profits from the family firm to fund research into ways of making society more equal at a time when the enfranchised middle and upper classes just did not want to hear about slums, prostitution, poverty and neglect. Quakers out there please put me right or add more.

I don't know how it was set up. Going back to look at it again, they do keep contradicting themselves. Actually surveys are rubbish in general. They take say 100 people and then they say this "proves" this that and the other!

Last week I read that 35% of women with children under 5 do not have a job compared with 10% of men because of the stereotypes people still believe and then this week I have read that 42% of women with children under 5 can't actually find jobs! Someone somewhere, is really bad at maths!

If Quakers are anything like the Plymouth Brethren (which I think they are) then they certainly won't be going near a computer, let alone a TV or radio or newspaper.

The women aren't allowed to wear trousers or cut their hair (it is singed if they need it shorter). Any type of excess is not approved of (but they like a drink!). They have to follow the most incredible ridiculous rules in the name of their religion. They are not allowed to take food prepared by anothers hand for instance but they seem to spend enough time in Tesco round here!

The meeting house starts at 6.30am on a Sunday and the worship goes on all day often with large gatherings in one house.

They are not allowed to share a sewage system and must live in detached houses! The women wear head scarves.

I know all this as I know a woman who left the religion after family problems (the Brethren were less than understanding, telling her she must leave her husband! - honest!) She is now writing a book called Cast Out and Set Free. I'm sure it will be a very interesting read.

Not really to do with a survey but I was on Femail.co.uk and someone said that women who work aren't bringing up their own kids and that girls should be told at school that being a mother is all they should be aspiring to! Implicit in that is that being a mother means literally physically being at home tidying up etc.

And of course,there was the usual at home is work! I would never say that the time I have with my son doing things for him and me is a job, certainly isnt' a chore!

Rhiannon, your description of the Quaker lifestyle certainly doesn't sound anything like the Quaker folk I know!

The ones of my aquaintance (and I think they are pretty representative) are just like anyone else, watching TV, eating out, the women wear trousers and have their haircut. They attend their Meeting House for an hour or so on Sunday morning. What I like about them is their acceptance of other people, whatever and whoever they are.

Rhiannon, the Quakers I know are nothing like the Plymouth Brethren, who, I agree, seem to lead an excessively joyless and restricted existence. Devised and imposed by themselves of course, which is why there seem to be so many ex-Brethren out there, and why leaving is often a traumatic experience. I have never met anyone who felt compelled to renounce being a Quaker: their whole faith is based on loving and easy-going acceptance of others around them. Most of them are teetotal by choice, I know, but they don't impose this on others: not at the parties I've been to anyway.
Jbr, like it or not, the history of Quakerism is relevant to what the Joseph Rowntree Trust does today. So what if some of their findings are contradictory? Isn't life? Isn't it better that a funding body has the integrity to publish its findings as they come, rather than doctor or suppress differences of opinion and outcome to suit a particular agenda, "good" or "bad"? Whatever we may feel about that particular research study, and how it was presented in the media, I bet the JRT has done more to further equality in society than the Daily Mail and its owners ever will.

Don't mention the Daily Mail to me LOL! They hate any woman having a life outside of her kitchen, especially is she's making money. And they always imply that women who work aren't putting their families first.

Sorry to all you Quakers out there, mis-information. I'm very glad you don't have to live like the Brethren!

Rhiannon, I should think we're all glad we don't have to live like the Brethren! I certainly am. Singeing women's hair? Unflattering teeny headscarves? Sounds barbaric to me...still, if they won't use computers, how can they assure us that it's actually a wonderful life?

I am not involved in surveys in any way but I don't think they should be dismissed outright JBR. We cannot make assumptions, based on our own life experiences, about those of others. I cannot see how we can get factual information about peoples lives, opinions etc unless we ask them and that means doing a survey.
In my line of work and where I live I don't have the opportunity to come into contact with many unemployed working class males and I would have very little idea what they think about women working other than prejudices of my own. I have to say I'm glad that there are well intentioned institutions out there, like the JRT, doing research to try and sort out areas of society where things are not running so smoothly.

OK ... seeing as I sit on a Joseph Rowntree Foundation advisory group overseeing research into family friendly employment policies, I thought I might be able to put a few things right here.

JRF was set up by Joseph Rowntree, he of the sweeties fame, who established a huge housing trust providing homes for low income families, making a vast quantity of sweeties and putting a lot of money aside for research into the causes of social deprivation. He was one of the wealthiest of the victorian philanthropists.

He was a Quaker, which is NOTHING like Plymouth Bretheren (this DID make me laugh!!) - the Plymouth Bretheren are as close to the Puritans as you can get - the Quakers have always been known as radicals - in some cases barely Christian - but always at the forefront of social activism in the church.

The JRF is one of the two big funders of social research - the other one is the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) - which is more of a quango. The JRF is the more independent of the two. It is run by some of the more senior social scientists in the UK, commissions research from academics and drafts relevant people onto advisory groups to help individual projects.

Generally speaking, they are definitely NOT sexist! Nor do they want to put women back in the Kitchen. They commission a very large amount of research in the UK, some of it good, some of it bad, but it is always conducted by academics in universities, not by them - they merely fund, oversee and publicise the research findings.

One of their problems (in my opinion) is that often they are naive in how they market their research, and fall prey to the interpretation given to it in the press. The press is always looking for "conflict" stories - especially in the gender debate - they are always looking for a story that allows either men or women to be blamed for the others troubles. The example given by JBR is a classic - the research was an attempt to discover what is going on for young men - the spin ended up blaming women. The spin was a classic case of gender war thinking (which JBR you fell into immediately) - thinking the issue was all about men vs women. That wasn't it's point - the research was done to understand young men and what is going on for them.

If we put aside the "gender war" way of thinking for a minute, this research is actually quite helpful. The best thing for women is men who live in a society that enables them to become well adjusted, productive, caring and capable human beings. In order to create that kind of society, we need research on the feelings and attitudes of young men to find out where they are coming from. If one of the issues that men are facing is the implications of women in the workplace, then we had better know about it in order to do something about it. This doesn't have to mean putting women back into the home. It is abouht managing social change so that people come through it OK. It might mean that we do something about getting more men into childcare, because that would help men see that they are capable of a wide range of activities, and deconstructing some of the gender stereotyping that still goes on.

JBR - I find your dismissal of the research into men and their feelings quite troubling - you said:

"What's to understand about the men's attitudes though. They are wrong and that is the end of it. "

Frankly that doesn't help. As you know, I am 100% on your side as far as the sexual division of labour being wrong, but we are in a society where for the last 2/300 years there has been as sexual division of labour, and the changes we are going through are bound to have an effect. You write as if it isn't possible for men to be adversely affected by the situations and social change they find themselves in - as if they are only ever "actors" and never "acted upon". You write as if men should get it right themselves without anyone else providing help to them. This is very gender stereotyped thinking, in my book.

For men, the movement of women into the workplace has born a cost - men's primary source of identity in the family was "provider" - society has, for generations told men that that is their role... and for this to change within a generation is bound to have an impact. It is a similar effect in some families when the father becomes highly involved and the mother feels that her role as primary carer has been undermined. Now I'm not saying that this goes for everyone, because it clearly doesn't - not in my family for example. But to think that men would be unaffected by the changes is naive. And men are struggling in some ways - boys are struggling at school more than girls, male suicide is much higher than female - for example.

Surely the thing to do is not dismiss these mens' feelings and attitudes as wrong but to understand them and look for solutions that enable them to come to terms with the changes that are going on. I'm sure that the fact that women work has had an effect on men - some (like myself) see this as a huge opportunity for us blokes to be more involved at home and share the breadwinning load. Others will feel confused in a society that values them as men as breadwinners and not carers (see previous discussions on men in chidlcare!), but at the same time tells them that breadwinning is something for both men and women..

By the way, I'm sure most people on here would agree that whether you are working (as in paid work) or looking after children, it is both a. knackering - i.e. hard work and b. "looking after your children" (whether financially or more hands on). I for one am glad that both men and women are starting to be able to do both.

When girls were doing less well in school than boys, it wasn't mentioned as though we are stupid and were expected to do badly. But now the boys are doing less than girls, it is in the news. It is the same with unemployment. I lost my job and it was oh well, you'll have more time at home. A bloke loses his job and there is loads of sympathy eg ship building, the miners etc. It is the same with call centres. That was always a female dominated area. Now there are more of them around and men are working in them, suddenly the press are looking at the "effects" of them on industry and workers!

The press still don't see it as normal for women to work. It is always "why" do women work. Why does anybody?!

I don't think it hurts for both parents to work but while people think only one parent should work, we should have a 50/50 gender split of so-called "at home" parents. Also, we should have a 50/50 gender split in all industries. The goverment have said that there has been a rise in male childminders but it isn't enough and there are still more women doing it than men.

I would also like to see the same resources available wherever you live. So if you live in London and can get free child care for a 6 month old (just an example off the top of my head) then you should be able to move to Edinburgh and find the same or similar facilites.

If people can manage on less money I would like to see both parents (if there are 2) working part time. But is that ever possible? Industry should be better spread out as well. The north/south divide is getting bigger. We have too many offices down here, but nothing "up there"!

The old argument from women who don't work that is "works for us" never washes with me. It is an old sexist view that shouldn't have existed.

Thank you for the laugh at my expense Tom. Sorry I am obviously not as 'up' on things as you are. As a man, (or are you) surely you must have work to do?