The optional nature of men's lives

[cailindana]

I was talking about this with DH recently and he agreed with much of what I said.

It strikes me that boys and men have very "optional" lives in comparison to girls and women and that this influences their whole approach to life. What I mean is, girls learn pretty early on that their choices will be restricted, that their options will be limited. From only being allowed to wear skirts and then told they mustn't show their knickers (thus removing the option to be active) to suddenly having to deal with periods and curtailing activities due to that, to then contending with the prospect of unwanted pregnancy and thus having restrictions on sexuality to then being told not to walk certain places not to do certain things for fear of being attacked and ultimately being told you "can't have it all" - ie choose work or children.

IMO, women (in general of course, not all) learn very quickly that there are consequences to things, that you can't always have what you want, that sometimes you just have to get on with it and face the fact that everything isn't perfect. I think that influences their approach to so many things in life from housework, to illness, to childrearing. Men on the other hand, always seem to have options open to them and I think that leads to a certain immaturity, a lack of acceptance that sometimes you can't have what you want. I think it has a bearing on how men approach things like fatherhood and the idea that now you don't have any choice but to knuckle down and accept your life is different - so many men seem to want to "opt out" and carry on as if nothing is different, thus leaving women to, as usual, take the hard road.

While I don't think it's right that women often end up carrying the burden I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing to have that maturity foisted on you. I think while women do lose out massively in the earlier years, especially when children are young, that maturity and that acceptance stands them in very good stead as they get older and ultimately they reap the rewards. I notice among older friends that women seem to come into their own in their 50s whereas men can't face that their options are now becoming limited and they no longer have the world open to them - hence mid-life crises etc. I think also because men expect options they tend to skirt on the edges of responsibility, never full accepting the hardship of, for example, parenthood, and thus ending up on the fringes as children get older and become true friends and companions. Thus women, who have been the stable guiding force in childhood, mucking in, organising, being the go-to person, reap the rewards of a close relationship with their adult children, whereas men, who focused on work, never really got their hands dirty with parenting, are now coming to retirement and the loss of that source of status but have not really jumped in with both feet in family life and so don't have that either. They are left with very little.

I am not saying the equality that exists is a good thing. What I'm saying I suppose is that while women look on enviously at men continuing their careers and never attending a parents' evening, they might do well to remember that the emotional toil and labour they put into their families is really and truly worth something. Jobs come and go, they give no love or longterm support. But children are for life, and being that person who always knows where the PE kit is is important, is special.

Men are missing out. They just don't realise that until it's too late.

We have to kiss at work sometimes!

Level of "not natural" is same as shaking hands for me. Just what you're used to isn't it. And in the UK (in my bit) men tend to shake hands socially with their friends etc and women don't tend to do anything. It was when I saw two work collagues greet each other with a large swooping handshake and a backslap I realised - I'd never greet anyone like that! But for men it's more normal IYSWIM.

I fake being comfortable with kissing and hugging. Handshaking I mind less. I don't love it, but I find it can help when first meeting someone professionally, man or woman. My new manager (a woman) got a bit tipsy at recent Christmas work lunch and gave me a kiss on the check and hug goodbye. I totally was not expecting it and froze so that was awkward

I think DH's company are actually as good as they could be at work life balance stuff. But the job involves lots of travel, lots of running around after clients, lots of late nights and weekend work. A woman there at a senior level left to have a child and tried to return part time, but DH said it was impossible as she didn't want to travel (understandably) and her clients had to be divided amongst other people - she ended up being a highly paid hr and admin role instead, she left within a couple of years. So it's not just men, sometimes it's the job that requires a ridiculous level of time commitment that just wouldn't work part time. But where possible, DH can take days or afternoons off (paid) or work from home where possible. It's just not always that possible

Bonuses , if paid, are usually (although not necessarily) for fee earners who have exceeded fee targets. Fee targets if they are to be meaningful should be set at a level which are realistically achievable at the charge out rate and assuming a realistic and sensible amount of hours spent doing work which can be billed, (which will be less than the hours one has to be there as there is always wasted time )

It may be easier for full time employees as they may be prepared to put in extra hours but it doesn't follow that part timers can't exceed targets. Being part time may well mean the part-timer focuses more efficiently on doing the work that generates fees during his/her contracted hours whereas the ftimer lets time slip.

Ptimers may find it easier to avoid the non-remunerative parts (providing training,writing articles, management admin) Or the ptimer might come up with a brilliant idea or wins a new client which might justify a bonus.

Any bonus should be an additional reward for additional effort. Employees don't get their wages cut for failing to meet targets although the reasons for that might be addressed at annual appraisal.

I could say more about allocation of salary reviews which does not bear out the suggestion the ptimers always lose out but (a) that would be based on my experience which several of you don't consider is relevant as it doesn't support your stance and (b) the level of detail is inappropriate but suffice to say the employees of both sexes who miss out, whether pt or ft are the ones who coast along, make little impression, show no interest in the company or what we do or why, don't offer to step -up when extra hands are needed, basically don't do more than they are contracted. Which is fine but they won't get a bonus for that and in a period of low inflation won't get a pay rise either.

Huh?

You seem to be talking about your industry / profession again Phaedra.

That isn't how the bonus system works with my employer (or any of my previous ones) at all.

For instance, my job has very very little to do with "providing training,writing articles, management admin".

Why do you keep taking your own (seemingly quite narrow) experience and asserting that it is true across the board?

I'm still interested in what industry you work in

Well, I worked in law and bonuses were done on a similar basis (I don't think Phaedra is describing law from a couple of the comments).

In my case, there were 101 things that made it harder to reach or exceed targets as a part timer. And many more that made it hard as someone who had to be efficient rather than just put in long hours.

But, as has been commented, I am not sure that debating one very niche area of the City is that helpful as most jobs are a world away from that system.

My DH bonus is based on them meeting financial targets for the year, then the pot is divided amongst a mix of the top rung management and lower down people doing particularly well whom it will motivate. It's a bit weird but DH reckons it works. Bit rubbish for people in the middle though!

Surely my DH isn't in the only sector in the City which just isn't suitable for part time working? Anything client facing, project managementy, is a 24/7 job. In London at least. They have tried to accommodate part time working but it just doesn't work, the clients dictate that really by expecting people to be constantly available.

Ballroom - No, it can work in almost every area. The exception I suppose is the travel (but often the travel is less central than it is artificially made to be - see the massive drop in travel during the downturn when there was a financial imperative not to). It's about whether people are willing to put in the effort to support it.

Depends doesn't it.

I think if an organisation wants something, and is good, then they can arrange it however they like. Some industries are more set in their ways than other of course and different roles have different requirements but still if it was what most people wanted and organisations wanted to support it then it would become the norm.

We have loads of "family friendly" initiatives at work, it's all global, lots of use of tech to keep in touch etc. The pure sales people travel a lot yes but they make the arrangements so if they were part-time they could arrange for when suited them I'd have thought? Dunno. We have clients and keep up with occasional in person and the rest of the time remotely which works fine. Will differ enormously between industries though I imagine, I only really know mine, and my area of mine IYSWIM.

cream going back to an earlier post, patriarchy is cultural and structural. Buffy and others would be able to explain this a lot better than I could but saying some pressures are cultural and some are structural doesn't mean they are not both derived from patriarchy.

My experience of City jobs is that the women I know who have "chosen" not to go for senior roles face a Hobson's choice. It's very difficult to do the jobs unless they don't have kids, have a SAHD, board the children or have two nannies. Most of the women I know in senior roles are in one of those categories, if not almost all. My female friends and colleagues are generally "not interested" in those options and therefore they would say they chose not to go for it. The men, on the other hand, almost always have a SAHM who does everything so they can work all the hours and get the promotions. I know a number of men who are distinctly mediocre but who stuck it out and put in the sweat / presenteeism required. Most of them are fathers.

I think that is precisely the point the OP is making. The men could choose to put in the time necessary at work. The women's choices are constrained by the responsibilities for childcare.

IMO it's quite simple. It's as plain as the nose on your face that men predominantly have the senior roles in the non-domestic sphere and women predominantly have responsibility for the domestic sphere. That is either the result of an essentialist difference between men and women that results in women being unable or unwilling to reach the heights men have reached or cultural and structural forces (patriarchy) are creating hurdles for women that they cannot or choose not to overcome. IMO the answer is obvious that women are not essentially different from men but they have additional obstacles. Choosing not to overcome an obstacle does not mean the obstacle does not exist and is not the equivalent of someone else choosing to pursue an obstacle-free path to reach the same goal.

Great post Flora.

It's annoying because DH says he'd support whatever choice I made, so in theory I could go back to work ft and pay a nanny, but that still leaves housework and general house admin and just the fact that I want a parent around for my children. Argnghngh.

The ft work / SAHP model suits men so much more than it suits women. He is free to focus on his career - when I work part time, it's in addition to all the house and childcare stuff, not instead of. It's just not worth it

You seem to be talking about your industry / profession again Phaedra

As I said. I appreciate that 30 years full time in a sector which used to be male dominated and being a mother and being very successful is completely irrelevant as I'm not writing a PhD.

Funny how no one ever challenges any other poster on this basis.

Why are they not interested in those options though? I returned after a couple of weeks and if isnt because I dont love and enjoy having our children but I just dont want to be at home. I see no reason why we cant have significantly more sahds. I cant be the only woman that feels this way on mn?

It is much easier to work with a sahp. We have done dual working before but I know now I come home and have no cooking, no cleaning and can relax and concentrate on getting ahead at work.

Phaedra - the issue isn't having a personal experience which differs from others. That is very relevant. But you don't always seem to be willing to recognise that others may have had a different personal experience, and yours doesn't invalidate theirs.

Lucky you creambun. I think my marriage needs a third member sometimes to do all the shit bits that neither me or DH wants to do, I'm just slightly more willing than he is. So he can do what you do, and focus on his career rather than worrying about inane shite.

He is free to focus on his career - when I work part time, it's in addition to all the house and childcare stuff, not instead of. It's just not worth it

Then sort it out. The remedy is in your own hands. Tell him tasks need to be shared.If women who work outside the home whether ft or pt are being stuck with an unfair share of domestic duties no law, no equal opps unit can solve that for.

There's no need to be a martyr about this.

Oh I agree penguins but the expressions of incredulity I've had from certain posters do exactly that.

Even though I work I still do night feeds as our youngest is 12 weeks. I do a lor of child related tasks/care. I do help with cleaning when I have chance. I dont ever cook but I didnt when we both worked or before children as I cant really cook. Just because someone works they can still help out

I'm not doing a PhD, Phaedra, and nor are many other posters on here.

I am interested in your experiences and in anything you think could carry across from your industry to others.

I know that in my industry, 90% of the people pictured on the websites in lead (not support staff) roles are men and that my sharing with DH rules me out of a number of jobs where an SAHP/DP with very flexible or local job is more or less assumed (or double nanny type situations). There it's not about just who gets the bonus - being able to work late at the drop of a hat is an entry requirement.

I'm in law. A fairly traditional blue chip firm. But as I've been told on here before law is just an old boys' network and I don't know what I'm talking about.

I suppose I must be imagining all my female partners and partners in other law firms. Many of whom are parents working part time.

Of course we will always promote a mediocre man over a good female employee. That makes business sense.

You're law? Gosh. Your description of the City doesn't match my experience of it.

I would concur that no one would promote a man for being a man. But the rest of it doesn't really chime with my experience.

Sigh.

Ok. this is an old article and does have a few issues. But 18% female partnership www.theguardian.com/law/2010/oct/29/gender-women. That doesn't sound like equal participation to me? Or are all the lost women just preference?

It's great that your industry (or your part of it depending on what it is) has achieved equality of opportunity Phaedra - that is of course as it should be. So many other industries have a really long way to go and at best are paying lip service to equality. I don't have children but am of an age where people expect you to be thinking about it fairly soon, especially if you are in a longterm relationship or perhaps worse, newly married. I've had a couple of men who own companies say to me in social situations that they would avoid hiring a woman of my age because of their own assumptions about my life plans. Obviously it's nothing compared to the discrimination that some people who actually do have children encounter, but based on my own experience my options have been restricted by other people's assumptions of what women want. (not that I wanted to work for them anyway )

I'm not in the City and never said I was so excuse me for not being terribly convinced by an out of date article in the most Londoncentric paper imaginable.

There is life outside London although I suppose it's a bit uppity for long established successful provincial firms to think of themselves as blue chip.