Judy Macinolty
A survey of women and work in OECD countries provides interesting reading and a series of graphs comparing the position of women on a number of criteria in Sweden, US, France, Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Spain and Italy in 1960 and 1996.
An historical overview draws attention to the often misunderstood pattern of the participation of women in the workforce. In agricultural societies both parents worked, as did their children from a young age. With the coming of the industrial revolution, again both parents often worked to make ends meet and their children had to start work early. The notion of a 'traditional nuclear family' is of relatively recent origin (1940s to 1960s), developing from the existence of a large and stable middle class with breadwinner father, housekeeper/childminder mother and a firm belief in extended education for the young.
This 'traditional' model was shortlived. Single women and married women up to the birth of the first child have usually worked. Now, more and more married women are working and are staying at work longer. Contraception has assisted family planning and a later start of families, which are usually smaller than in the past. Then, too, women with children are continuing to work in large numbers, either through necessity or to achieve higher living standards and quality of life.
Apart from the financial benefits, many women enjoy their work and education has opened up a wider range of job opportunities and careers even though there is still a degree of sex differentiation in the workforce.
The nature of work has been changing in developed countries. Traditional male jobs in manufacturing have been declining due to changes in technology, while service industries have been growing. The often part time, temporary or irregular work in the latter offered a way for women to combine family and work.
There is criticism of working women. Some have argued that high levels of female employment have led to marriage breakdown, to men having reduced feelings of responsibility to supporting the family, and to lack of male role models for boys.
On the other hand, the economic argument strongly supports female employment. There is a larger pool of available labour, the tax spread is wider, and demand for goods increases. Women are often cheaper to employ, are usually more flexible and less inclined to complain about conditions, and join unions in smaller numbers than men. (!!)
In America women's unemployment rates are roughly the same as for men although in Europe where jobless rates are higher, female unemployment is generally higher than male. This is particularly the case in the former East Germany where men have been attracted to work previously considered women's work.
Work may be satisfying some needs for women but it is not necessarily all good. Women are still in a very small minority in real areas of power in business, education, and government and are on average paid less than men for similar work, though the situation is slowly improving.
Reactions of employers to women having babies often means that women are regarded as less committed than men and less able put in the hours, with a consequent downgrading of job offers and conditions and the erection of barriers to women's careers.
The survey argues that women 'having once tasted the freedom of the workplace, are most unlikely to turn back. The potential economic benefits are persuasive, but have not yet been fully realised, and the sheer speed of the change has created huge stresses and strains. Organisations, institutions and attitudes have yet to catch up'.
Since the end of World War II, during which women were welcomed to fill the jobs of men in the fighting forces, the trend to higher female employment has been upwards, possibly because both women and employers have sought this change. Between 1960 and 1997 in the surveyed countries the increase has been marked, especially in Sweden where almost 80 percent of women aged 15-64 are working. Next come United States and Britain, the lowest proportion being in Italy and Spain where the proportion is close to 50 per cent.
The workplace is still segregated with sex stereotyped occupations. 'Men still dominate the heavy manual, technical and managerial tasks, while women are concentrated mainly in caring and nurturing occupations and support roles.' As women gain higher education qualifications they are beginning to move into better jobs and have a wider choice but it remains a struggle. In female dominated occupations, pay remains low so that there is a wide gap between average male and female earnings in spite of equal pay legislation.
A study comparing the lifetime earnings of women with no break in their working lives and women who have a break to raise a family, followed by a period of part time work while the children are at school, revealed the latter would earn less than half than the former. This is made up of loss of earnings, loss of promotion opportunity, and failure to keep pace with the skills and practices of the occupation, thereby necessitating a return to work to a lower skilled position. 'Children can severely damage your wealth.'
'Part-time' seems to equate all too often to 'second-class'. One woman 'previously in a high-powered full-time job, returned to work part-time after childbirth and found that "everybody behaved as though I had suddenly gone dumb."' Many women, prefer the flexibility of part-time work and employers like them not only for that reason but because they cost less and, more often than not, achieve much more than the hours suggest. Much the same can be said for contract work or so-called 'minor employment.' Women's share of all part-time employment in the survey countries was as high as 87.6 per cent in Germany ranging down to 74.7 per cent in Italy.
Women at the top, in politics, business, the professions or academe are few and far between even in countries where women make up almost half the workforce. And there seems little correlation between these spheres. For example, in Germany over a quarter of the MPs are women but their share of top executive and board positions in major companies is less than 3 per cent. The pattern is different in America where women hold about 10 per cent of board seats but only 12.6 per cent of House of Representatives seats and 9 per cent of Senate positions.
Women have come a long way in politics in a relatively short time but have still a way to go. They are seldom in ministerial positions and when they are, their portfolios tend to be in the 'soft' areas of health, education, labour, social affairs and culture rather than finance or foreign affairs.
In the business world few companies are headed by women and few are in top executive positions and higher management as a whole. There are different explanations for this, women accepting that they often lack managerial experience, but pointing also to other obstacles including 'male myths and preconceptions' (one could say misconceptions). Women often feel excluded from networks and also lack mentors in the workplace. They are blamed for being too aggressive or not sufficiently assertive.(!) And it must be added that many women do not apply for the top jobs for a number of reasons.
The writer argues that businesses must be convinced that it is good for business to promote women, that if they already have trained women on staff they should protect their investment by allowing flexibility to women by offering maternity leave so that the women return, and that women can bring different approaches to issues thus contributing to diversity.
The so-called glass ceiling, according to the author, is being sidestepped by many women these days. Rather than bang their heads on it, they are becoming entrepreneurs themselves. In America, for example, women are setting up new businesses at twice the rate of men and there is lively growth in this area in Britain.
The pattern of work for women with children varies between the countries according to the provision of maternity leave and whether it is paid leave, and provision for parental leave and whether it is transferable, allowing parents to share in the care of small children. The dual-career pattern of married couples now appears to be the norm in America but less popular in Europe.
The writer makes the point that in the home, men still do less than their fair share of housework and child care. This appears worst in Japan (8 minutes a day compared to women at three and a half hours a day on top of their paid work).
Great gains have been made by women in the developed world, but there is still a way to go. At one end of the scale, many women are stuck with low paid, low prestige work while at the other end, many in the professions or in management have to struggle as men 'close ranks against them'. 'By going out to work ... women in rich countries are pioneering a new, dual-earner family model. But the world around them was designed for the traditional model...that applies not only to work but in a myriad other ways, from tax policies to shop hours to who does the laundry. Moreover, that traditional model lives on in hundreds of millions of heads, female as well as male, and still governs many dreams and aspirations. Model and reality have got out of synch.'
Since this pattern is here to stay, the writer suggests that governments, employers and individuals all need to re-think their roles.
Reprints of the survey are available at 2 pounds 50p (by cheque - minimum order 5 copies) from The Economist Shop, 15 Regent St, London SW1Y 4LR or Fax credit card order on + 44 (0) 171 839 1937.