Market Work vs. Other Work
3:20 pm May 9th, 2008Jesse recently read a few chapters of Joan Williams’s Unbending Gender for school, and recommended that I take a look at them. Although a lot of the more theoretical aspects went over my head, I found it an extremely intelligent and interesting analysis of work/family/gender issues with a lot of practical recommendations that support my own positions about work/life balance.
Williams describes a norm of domesticity based on an “ideal worker” doing market work, who works full-time, is available for overtime, is available for relocation, and takes little to no time off for child-rearing. Especially in cases where children are involved, this ideal worker can only fill this role if supported by someone, usually a partner, who abstains from ideal-worker market work in order to raise children and care for the household (hence the slogan “most women need a wife”). While the feminism of a few decades ago focused (successfully) on giving women access to these types of jobs, it insufficiently accounted for the fact that these workers are intended to be backed up by a partner taking care of family work; most women remain primarily responsible for childcare and household work regardless of their employment status, which leads to a situation in which they can only gain the social power of men through essentially working double shifts, one shift as a market worker and another as a mother and family worker. She describes this as a situation that can and should be legally framed as discrimination. She also points out that divorce laws, which award most of the household assets to the market worker (who “earned” the money) without compensating the family worker who made the market work possible (and who will probably also have to support the children after the divorce).
Williams also argues that this system is not just harmful to women (who disproportionately fill the role of marginalized caregiver, or if they do not, have a hard time living up to the ideal-worker norm because they rarely have partners available for family work), but also to men, children, and society — she quotes both women who “choose” to stay home with children but would prefer to keep working at a schedule that allows them to have time for their children as well as their careers, and men who “would prefer the ‘daddy track’ to the fast track”. While everyone seems to agree that children should have more time with their parents, employers reward the opposite behavior by promoting workers who spend long hours at work and passing over or not hiring workers they think will try to take time to be with their families.
She points out that work hours have increased in the U.S. over the past few decades; not only is there more overtime, but people work farther form their jobs, so getting home at 5 is unreasonable for most workers — but an 8-to-7 schedule for both parents is unreasonable for children, thus perpetuating the situation where it’s only practical for one parent to work (and since societal norms still punish men who don’t work, it’s still usually the man).
Williams has a solution to this: more flexible work hours for everyone. She points out an example of a family that decides that someone should be home with the children two days a week; if one parent asks for a three-day week, an employer will usually consider that unreasonable, but if employers were more open to giving both parents a four-day week they could both keep working and still give their children the time they need. She approaches this from an explicitly pragmatic perspective, pointing out that flexible schedules need not disadvantage employers. My position is that this would even be advantageous to employers, who would have a broader pool of qualified workers to choose from and happier (thus more productive) workers at work if they were more willing to give out schedules that accommodate employees’ values and non-market priorities.
The book focuses on families with children, but she briefly touches on how a more flexible work schedule would be advantageous for single or childless people. This is something I feel particularly invested in — as the text points out, the work-hours it takes now to produce a 1948 standard of living are less than half those it would have taken then, yet people are working longer hours and consuming more, in large part because employment structures discriminate against part-time workers, denying them benefits, fair pay, advancement opportunities, and respect. With more flexible opportunities, all kinds of people who are satisfied with a lower standard of living could work fewer hours and devote the extra time to community service, personal projects, travel, family, or any number of other worthwhile pursuits. I’ve seen a few news articles in the past few years incredulously describing the expectations of “Gen Y” workers new to the workforce — we want “work/life balance”, they scoff. How selfish! Imagine! Market work is not necessarily the most important thing in our lives, and we’d prefer less money to longer hours!
In fact, almost everyone hopes to balance their time between market work, family work, community work, and personal time — but employers almost never offer schedules amenable to such balance. If they did, everyone would be better off.
1 Comment to “Market Work vs. Other Work”
Anonymous says:
June 6th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I think your analysis is right on. It reminds me of something I read in a book published in the late 60’s by Ashley Montague (sp?). His idea was that it would be better for men, women, and children if men worked less and women had out of the home employment (this was before women were in the workforce in the large numbers they are now). He suggested that employers should be more flexible about part time work so that ideally in a family with children the man and woman would each work 20 hrs./wk. That way each would have time for the children and other life interests. This has always struck me as close to the ideal - although others might have a different balance point.
I am also very intrigued by William’s point that productivity gains mean that working 20 hr./wk will get you a standard of living roughly equivalent to that of someone working full time in 1948.
Dad
Leave a Reply