Government policy on women's rights and welfare harms children and families, and fails to deliver what women want, argues Cristina Odone in a new pamphlet published today by the Centre for Policy Studies.
Challenging the feminist orthodoxy head-on, her pamphlet argues for a family-friendly policy, rather than one promoting women's rights in the workplace. It cites a groundbreaking new opinion poll specially commissioned from YouGov. This shows that, given the choice, only 12% of mothers - less than one in eight - actually wants to work full time. 31% would rather not work at all. Only 1% of mothers and only 2% of fathers thought that the mother in a family where the father worked and there were small children should work full time.
Labour has spent billions promoting a macho agenda that aims to get women into work and more work out of women. But this policy satisfies only one in five women and ignores the wishes of 99% of mothers with young children.
Notions of women's progress over the past decade have been measuring the wrong things, Odone argues, such as greater numbers of women in top jobs, better state-funded childcare and a shrinking earnings gap. "That is based on an unspoken - and false - assumption: that women achieve self-realisation through their career" says Odone.
So why does the state regard only full-time paid work as worthy, and time spent caring for families as a waste, or a sign of victimhood? The reason, says Odone, is simple: the debate about women's role in society has been taken over by a small minority of high-profile career women with priorities quite unrepresentative of the rest of Britain (and often with the household budgets to pay for atypically good fulltime child care). These women have bought into the masculine value system that ranks the pay packet and the corner office above mothering, caring for the elderly, and volunteering in the community.
This same high-profile minority believes women must be wholly autonomous beings - ignoring real women's yearning for couple inter-dependence.
Government policy is not reshaping the world to fit women's wishes, but bending women to fit the demands of the workplace, Odone argues. She writes: "The establishment is determined to fashion British women in its own mould: autonomous units of production rather than creators of, and investors in, social capital."
Instead of making it attractive for employers to offer part-time work the state burdens them with extra regulations and requirements. The tax and benefits system penalises women who want to care for their families, and subsidises those who neglect them. The effects are catastrophic: though many working mothers manage through great personal sacrifices and good planning to care for their children properly, many do not.
Comments
I'm particularly interested in Ally's case study because, in theory, this family unit should be working perfectly. There is the worker (Ally) and the stay-home carer/nurturer (Karl), so where is the problem? The implication seems to be that the family is in trouble simply because the gender roles have been reversed. Why should this be?
Karl complains of Ally's "control freakery and dominance". This personality trait can cause relationship problems regardless of whether Ally is a man or a woman.
It is also suggested that Karl feels unfulfilled in his role as worker. Perhaps a follow-up study should be done on stay-at-home fathers. For if mothers feel stigmatised by government and society for 'squandering their futures and state funds' by staying home to raise their children, how much more stigmatised and derided do stay-at-home FATHERS feel for choosing to reject the 'traditional' role of the go-getting, independent breadwinner?
I advise the European delegation of the Worldwide Movement of Mothers (www.mouvement-mondial-des-meres.org) on research. MMM Europe seeks to inform policy makers in the EU and would be able to replicate to some degree the YouGov research you report with samples in other European countries.
With whom could I speak about how this could be done?
Owen
Dr. Owen J. Stevens, Ph.D.
Firstly, Odone should distinguish between parents (mothers and fathers) and non-parents (men and women).
The 4 case studies say much about a lack of communication, responsibility and respect between the members of each couple. Small wonder, when children come along, there are problems.
"Women's rights" is a complete misnomer. Parents' rights and responsibilities would be far more apt. Responsible parenting comes from responsible adults, not some skewed flawed research which insults intelligent and caring adults.
Fathers and mothers are important and men and women have a right to make decisions about their own lives without Odone labelling anybody as "macho" or "materialistic" because of their gender and personal choices.
Very good study and useful here in Canada and around the world. The answer is as Odone suggests to pressure government to open up the definition of useful work to more than just paid employment. The women in the study who preferred 'not to work' actually preferred to be home with their children it seems and that involves self-less gruelling 18 hour days 7 days a week with no coffee breaks or weekends off. Please check out my websites of research which add a supportive perspective for this case.
http://workisee.tripod.com
http://vuthruothe rseyes.tripod.com





I have a number of questions about the research in the Appendix of Cristina Odone's pamphlet.
For example, did you ask the same set of questions about whether fathers should work? This raises important issues of validity.
Could you publish the full questionnaire please?
Thank you