The Catherine Hakim research

[LadyBlaBlah]

It is getting on my nerves the way this research is being reported.

The Telegraph

Daily Mail

Reuters

you can get a summary of the study on this page, referenced here too

google books copy see page 9 for some outstanding patriarchal defence

All in all it seems to me that this bit of 'research' has been made to perpetuate the author's own patriarchal views, and hence provides valuable ammunition to the anti-feminists in the media.

I might be the first to provide a review on google books

It really irritates me that this stuff is so often portrayed as being all about women - it's first and foremost about parents, surely.

In my view, anyone who denies that is agreeing with Hakim's finding that "modern society now offers women more lifestyle choices than men: careerist (eg Hillary Clinton), home-centred (the invisible full-time mothers), or a flexible combination of paid work and family work (most women)

It always makes me so angry that this is a conversation about women, and the difficulties they face. I mean, chaotica, a lot of what you describe is out-and-out sexism and disgusting and I have a lot of sympathy with your position. But - you say (my emphasis) "I love my subject, but it is not kind to women" and "the untenured temporary contract way into academia is usually so unsatisfactory for women, unless they are single and childless" whereas I would argue that it is not kind to those people, men or women, who want evenings and weekends to themselves and the basis for a stable family life, say.

I think Hakim's argument is that these things are more important to women than to men, and so women are more prepared than are men to sacrifice their career prospects. I don't see it as a gender issue so much as a parenting issue - I get uncomfortable when people seem to be conflating "woman" and "parent". I think Hakim's research seems to do this a lot, and I think several of the posts here do that too.

I can't find who it was who was talking about working fathers being in the pub when she, as a working mother would not choose this - but this is exactly the sort of choice that Hakim may have had in mind when she was saying that women choose to earn less. I don't say that workplaces that operate in this way or humane or healthy, but I'd argue strongly that this is not sexism.

Sorry, that post was far too long

the marrying up point is entirely spurious. When 70+ % of men leave school at the minimum school leaving age, the chance of meeting someone with more education is much smaller than when 80% experience some form of post compulsory schooling

Also, in what world is marriage about a woman's decision rather than two peoples' decision?

The mind boggles.

I agree with some of your point, Tubby, that the difficulties affect men as well as women. But I (as a parent) work evenings and weekends at home (I was often working past midnight while my children were very small) and I am quite happy to work odd hours even with children.

However, I think women do worse than men here for two reasons. Firstly, there is a biased assumption that I won't be prepared to do this simply because I am a woman. (I have my limits - I work but don't go away to conferences on the DCs' birthdays, for instance - this is quite possibly damaging my career.) Secondly, there is a biological difference: I can bf and work full time (and I did, as many other women do), but I can't go away for days every week or work away in the evenings. Whatever hardships men go through due to a poor working environment (which, I admit, they do), it is biologically necessary that women take time off to have children and women are penalized for it, not men. Thus, my comments mention women rather than men because they are more adversely affected by the decision to have a family.

The problem with saying that the hours/ after work pub culture affects mothers and fathers in equal proportion is that fathers are much more likely to have the back up of a SAHP or at least one with flexibility at work if they need to stay late.

Mothers are much less likely to have a SAHP who can provide childcare when they have to work in the evening or show face at the pub.

So given the way that our home lives operate this need to go to the pub after work is a gender issue, not just a parenting issue.

I think I was one of the Not Pub People, but I said I wouldn't go there in part because I don't think it offers any great career benefits. That said, I so agree about men; my own husband is just as keen to avoid presenteeish flagwaving as I am because he too wants a work-life balance.

I agree, Chaotica, that women are, overall, more adversely affected by the decision to have a family because of the biological differences. I guess that where we'd differ is that I'd say that the biological differences are relevant for such a (relatively) short period that they disappear into the wash when looking at it over a whole career. (Maybe I'm being overly optimistic though, or underestimating how easy it is to fall off the career ladder...)

And I agree fully that women are discriminated against by the assumption, commonly held by employers, that it is them and not their male partners who will take the brunt of the childcare (whether or not they currently have children!) It's partly for this reason that I get antsy when I think I see issues for "women" and "parents" being treated as the same thing. I think it's damaging for everybody if the current cultural norms are perpetuated as if they are fixed in stone.

This links to Karmakameleon's point - I know it's the case at the moment that men are more likely not to be primary carer in a couple, but I would see this as the result of choices that individual couples make. The operation of our home lives is not an immutable fact - I guess this is probably where I start to agree with Hakim that women (and presumably men) make choices. So, I'm not saying that long hours cultures don't disproportionately disadvantage women, given the other choices that they and their partners have made in life - but I'm arguing that this isn't sexism but about choices that the sexes have historically made differently.

So it is a gender issue, yes, but, to me, it's not about workplace discrimination, but rather it's about the negotiations that happen in individual relationships. I think this is a really important distinction - it certainly has significant implications for, say, what I'd see as appropriate public policy.

The other reason I get exercised about this is that I think that there's still an awful lot of what is to me "true" sexism around - I worry that if we bundle e.g. long hours cultures in as well, then it starts to look like special pleading because we want more than is possible in life and it weakens the case against the Daily Mail "feminists have always been wrong-headed idiots" type argument.

(Sorry, long again - am trying to work out what I think about this as I go.)

tubby, I do wonder how many couples make an active decision for the mother to be the primary carer. I think many people just go along with the norm and don't question it. Often when women do try and get a fairer split, their partners do not support them (plenty of treads on mumsnet where that's the case). When an active decision is made, how often is it due to the fact that statistically the woman is likely to earn less, gets more parental leave and is more likely to be granted a flexible working arrangement? Hakim's research seems to be saying that 70% of women are heavily influenced by such factors.

As for whether the must be seen down the pub attitude to work is "real" discrimination, it certainly has a real effect. For example, my issue above with moving into a team with a macho drinking culture is not because I need to look after my kids (I have none) but because I do not feel comfortable in such an environment. If I were a Muslim feeling uncormfortable with working in a drinking culture and missing out on promotions because, although good at my job, I didn't spend enough time sucking up to my boss in the pub, would you say that the discrimination was not "real"?

tubby, what about single mothers? There have been loads of threads on MN where the father has just up and left the mother, often when her children are tiny. Fathers abandoning the family home is scarily common, as is not behaving like a decent enough human being.
My new motto is: for every single mother, there's a man out there doing fuck all in terms of childcare
What about all the women who never want to see the father of their child again, let alone have them near her children?
I think there is a smidgen of naivety in your posts. If only it were all that simple, and it was all just a matter of getting the dad to take up the slack to free up mothers.

Karma, I agree that lots of people probably go along with the status quo, so that in a couple the woman takes on the primary carer role. I'd also guess that the deeply sexist maternity/paternity leave rights in the UK are probably something to do with this too.

These are exactly the kinds of reasons why I try to use the word "parent" instead of "mother", as much as I can, and to distinguish issues for women from issues for parents - I want to challenge the norm that it's a women's issue (and challenge people to think about whether the status quo is right for them, and point out at every opportunity that the law is deeply discriminatory). I want to live in a society where it's safe to assume that an average man will be as actively involved with his children as is the average women - and I think that talking about "women" when I mean "parents" is actively damaging to this aspiration, because it helps entrench the status quo.

I know this is in some ways a bit odd/completely perverse because, as we all know, it is today primarily an issue faced by women - and women are far more likely to be single parents than are men, as Sakura points out.

And I'm not sure how far anyone in RL actually notices my personal crusade to talk about "parents" instead of "women", and to assume, say, that working fathers (a phrase that's barely ever used) may be juggling too. But even if, for every 100 people who think I'm naive or dim, one person gets to thinking about, say, the assumptions that they make about gender division of labour, then I don't mind looking(/being) naive.

Tubby, I understand what you are saying, but I don't see working fathers facing the same issues as working mothers. For example, of all the many working fathers I have worked with, only one has ever had to take any childcare responsibility. I'm the first to speak up for him when he needs to take a day off to cover for the sick nanny, but I don't pretend he is the norm. Most rely on the mothers of their children to do these things.

Conversely, I have only ever known one working mother who didn't have to consider childcare issues because she had a DH who stepped back from his career to look after the children. Again, she was unusual.

To pretend this is primarily a parenting issue rather than a gender issue ignores the fact of who actually looks after children.

Yes, I understand what you're saying too, but to me thinking of this as a parenting issue is more accurate. Things like long hours cultures are not anti-woman per se, whereas they are anti-parent-with-childcare-responsibility. Of course, while I wouldn't therefore see a long hours culture as sexist, I see that it disproportionately disadvantages women due to their greater likelihood of having such responsibilities - so I wouldn't say I was ignoring the facts entirely...

Despite this, I wince when I hear e.g. workplace childcare raised as a women's issue, because (i) it reinforces the difficulties faced by child-free women who come up against the assumption that they will be less reliable etc than their male colleagues (ii) it ignores the experience of working fathers who have childcare responsibility and of SAHDs and (iii) I see it as an own-goal in terms of trying to move people's thinking forward. (Or what I consider to be forward, anyway )

I am with tubbyglossop - these need to be seen and addressed as parenting decisions, otherwise the perception will continue to be that women 'choose' to step down (for want of a better expression)to concentrate on family.

In many of the SAHP vs WOHP debates the majority of people see their choice (which ever one or combination it is) as a 'free choice' and are generally accepting of the consequences of these decisions.

Whilst childcare is continued to be considered as a 'woman's issue' then we will continue to see women 'choosing' to stop working after kids because it is 'not worth it' once childcare costs/work demands/work life balance etc.

I took short maternity leaves, work ft and my career has blossomed since having children and I work in a male dominated industry. These were my choices which have familial consequences/demands (particularly since I am single mum).

I don't think I agree with Catherine Hakims conclusions - but think that the research itself raises interesting questions.

Can I jump back to Karma and Bonsoir's points about networking.

Surely, this idea of networking being a certain way at certain times not only disadvantages parents within the company - but also clients with home responsibilities? I cannot begin to tell how many invitations to networking/fun women in business/check out our services or facilities type things I've turned down because even though they're targetting women, they're completely incompatible with being a business running single parent. And I have far more flexibility than many of the main carers that I know because of our family set-up; if I can't make them then a huge number of other people can't make them either.

The whole structure of the working day needs to be more flexible IMO, like schooling we've modified a system that's based on old needs when our needs, wants and capabilities have moved on to an incredible degree.

Anastaisia,

I actually think the two points about flexibility and parenting seen as a 'woman's issue' are completely interelated. Though not at all completely resolved the organisation I work for - through their diversity communities - recognised exactly this problem.

Whilst there have still been evening events that either my client have had to decline due to family commitments, they have also provided a wealth of daytime/lunchtime/breakfast briefing events to the working parents (mums and dads) and women's network.

Similarly flexibility around work is a big issue being looked at not just for mum's, but training atheletes, those wanting to start their own businesses and a myriad of other reasons. By making these choice available and acceptable to take by all - you actually benefit women in the long run - who don't always have to make these work/life choices described by Cathrine Hakim 'their choices'. And the working day is being changed.. it is not unusual for people to work compressed hours, term time hours or for working parents to start early, leave the office early, do bed-time hour at home and then work again late at night (thus keeping on top of work requirements).

Alot of these initiatives are benchmarked against best practice and other orgnisations, and I have been really impressed by the constant innovation. When I started my career it was learn golf/go to the pub or nothing - now without being forced to do the 'boys netwoking' , which of course still is in place, I have access to networking events that interest me at times I can do.