
Corporate
Blues
| Issue: | 28,2004/05 | Page: | 13 |
|
Abstract |
Work and families |
| Keywords: | Employment, families |
“Well, we haven’t got anything
against employing a male…”
No, this is not a line out of
some satirical TV show. I heard these words (twice) during my recent
search for
a job. I left my previous work due to a combination of a desire to
pursue other
opportunities, and because I’d had a complete gutsful of the big
corporation I
was part of. It’s a bit embarrassing to admit it, but I realize now
that I was
pushed to the brink and beyond.
During my time “between jobs”, I
experienced some rather ugly aspects of humanity. It came to my
attention in no
uncertain terms that too much time spent at home engaging in domestic
activities was not at all healthy for the male species. Messages
started
filtering through that something had to be done. One day while I was
hanging
out the washing, my mind flashed back a few years when relatives were
visiting
from the North Island. In my flashback, I remember coming back inside
having
just finished hanging out a fresh load. The atmosphere inside however,
was far
from fresh. Apparantly I was doing far too much “around the house”.
Hell… I am
a completely housetrained man !!! While this may or may not be deemed
as a
virtuous male trait in 2004, it is by no means supposed to get in the
way of a
man earning a crust. We superficially judge a persons worth upon,
firstly,
whether they are officially employed or not, and secondly, what they
actually
do for a job if they are employed. Nobody cops this more than a man
with a
family.
I think a lot about work, that
necessary blight in our lives. Many people will say I think way too
much about
work (as opposed to actually doing it). As a man of course, there is no
escaping the shackles of the workforce, however it manifests itself.
Come rain,
hail, shine and childbirth, it’s something we are supposed to just keep
on
doing. In their book, “The next generation” Jane and James Ritchie
outline what
the depression years meant in terms of employment.
“For the
blokes, these were
often times of crisis. How could you be a good provider without a job?
And
being a provider was the
basic
foundation for being a man”. (p13)
Ah yes, the good ol’ financial
provider and rock; the natural hunter-gatherer, etc. So, have attitudes
really
changed that much in 70+ years? Much has been written in more recent
history
about the world of work. You know, 106 career changes, 15 redundancies,
24/7
working week, at home Dads, she earns more than he. Through all these
social
upheavals and developments, there seems to be one constant that will
never,
ever change. BLOKES HAVE GOT TO WORK AND PULL THEIR FINANCIAL WEIGHT. A
decent
stretch out of work will reinforce this to any guy on the globe.
Women don’t escape the pressure
either. My beloved was asked many times when and/or if she was going
back to
work (and not just by me !). But a woman who juggles career and family
is
deemed to be highly virtuous, she is the woman who miraculously,
somehow “does
it all” (but not a stay at home mum strangely- that is SO easy!). A man
who
juggles however… “Nahhh…It’s just not the same…. is it”. He who juggles
is seen
as the guy who only works part time, and goofs around picking up the
kids from
school. To be anything less than the primary breadwinner is to be less
of a
man.
The Prime Minister recently wrote
an excellent piece about work-life balance in New Zealand. In it she
suggests
that many businesses are trying to address the balance, moving forward
to a
less gender specific approach, which actually increases staff loyalty,
job
satisfaction, and productivity, while reducing absenteeism, and staff
turnover.
Awareness of the work-life balance for men seems to be definitely in
its
infancy in New Zealand. The corporation I worked for gave me a free
“baby pack”
full of goodies before each birth, but offered absolutely no “after
sales
service”. Help options were
in place (like free counselling), but most of it was
“ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” stuff. Helen Clark points to an
Equal
Employment Opportunity Trust survey, which found that eighty percent of
employed fathers would like to spend more time with their families. I
wonder
how many of these fathers are encouraged by their employer to achieve
that
particular goal?
My wife has recently returned to
the workforce part time. The main problem with this is the shift-work.
She has
complained on many occasions that she is no longer able to do the school pick ups or drop
offs. I
kind of
understand her anguish, but then thought this through for myself. When
I worked
full time, I missed out on a whole heap with the children, day after
day, year
after year. I just so felt like the secondary parent, that I would
often cry
with frustration. I was there as much as I possibly could have been,
but I
couldn’t compete with a full time Mum. I am positive that my wife
simply
wouldn’t have tolerated the situation that I had to live, if the roles
were
reversed. Now that the children are at school, we have a fairly good
work
balance between us, but back then she wanted to be at home and I was
(mostly)
happy to play the breadwinner. It’s just the way it worked out, but it
did mean
someone missed out on quantity time with the kids. That someone was me,
and I
have legitimate feelings around that.
My time out of work convinced me
that gender employment stereotypes are as prevalent now as they have
been
during previous generations. Government departments like “Work and
Income”,
tend to reinforce the “man as breadwinner” model. As I cast my eye
around the
employment section of the newspapers, I saw first hand that the roles
open to
woman actually seemed to be wider than for men. I also saw how totally
intimidating the wording of these advertisements are for anyone seeking
their
first job. Most companies basically want some kind of superhuman, who
will
basically spill blood for the cause, if their “situations vacant”
advertisement
is anything to go by ! The figures still indicate that men are more
represented
at the management level, but at other “front office” levels, the
opposite
seemed to be true. Walk into any industry you can think of, and take a
look at
the gender mix of the people you first come across. I would have
thought that
in 2004, we would be living in more enlightened times, where gender
employment
roles were far more open and family friendly attitudes extended to all
members
of the family. Maybe New Zealand’s very first elected female Prime
Minister can
change the psyche of a nation, and give males the true freedom to
explore different
occupation options that benefit them and their kids. Or is that
sounding too
much like election year propaganda?