Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Men are just as much victims of the workplace
My husband has moved to working four days a week this year, and it has changed our lives
Monday, 8 September 2008
I met Fiona Phillips at a dinner last week. The bright and skilled presenter on GMTV's breakfast programme is demob happy. After 12 years, she is quitting her lucrative and influential job. She wants, she said to me, more humane working hours, real time with her kids and to care for her elderly father.
Her decision was announced just as the nation was presented with the latest Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report, Sex and Power. The news was abysmal. In the drive up to the top, talented women had slowed down, stopped or gone into reverse. The old banger stalls more than it moves.
I hope Jeremy Paxman read the report avidly. It might assuage his paranoia that white men are now so washed up that they will perish, pining and untended on our shores. White men still rule, whether good, brutally bad, plain ugly or manifestly mediocre. And many wilfully and demonstrably discriminate against women and non-white aspirants, although of course they deny it. They would wouldn't they?
The EHRC seriously understates this active exclusion by powerful men. The chairman, Trevor Phillips, and the chief executive, the former civil servant Nicola Brewer, are inclined to favour the consensual model, to put the powerful at ease. Eschewing legal instruments and straight talk, the commission prefers careful words and to offer carrots. We wait and see if this strategy will deliver. I am sceptical.
The report, however, is right to conclude that gender prejudice is not the only cause of the differentials at the top of British society. Other important factors may be responsible. Ms Phillips, like many other successful women, decided to use more wisely her coming years, not to squander precious time by giving over such a disproportionate amount to her brilliant career.
Not many men could give such reasons for leaving top jobs. Our culture and their own masculinity does not allow it. A tiny percentage do but soon return to their natural place in the order of things. Think of Alan Millburn, who left his job as health secretary in 2003, ostensibly because he wanted to see his kids growing up. Norman Fowler went off for the same romantic reasons in 1990. Both were back prowling the corridors of power within two years. Either the kids of the leading classes grow up unnaturally fast or they couldn't hack it. Or, more poignantly, they do not have the same entitlements as women when it comes to work-life balance. They are victims of another kind of emerging inequality.
Earlier this year I spoke at diversity conferences in the City. We discussed the pressures of working long hours and the demands of children and ageing parents. Employers do try and facilitate their needs, up to a point. It isn't enough, and the sense of personal crisis is palpable.
Most carers of parents are female even in this group of supermen and superwomen, partly because that is their given role. One man said: "I can't tell my boss my mother is suffering from dementia and I have to see to her. It would be professional suicide for a guy to confess to that."
Within the family there are other pressures to conform. Most men in work do not feel they can abandon decently paid jobs to start up risky, small businesses and better balance their lives – the route taken increasingly by talented women. My husband has moved to working four days a week this year, and changed our lives hugely for the better. He feels liberated, but I feel a hum of worry. His regular job has enabled me to opt for a dilettante career. In that sense I have more rights than he has. You do find that behind many a creative and self-driven woman, there is a dependable bloke who steadies the ship.
In the end though, we have to blame white men for this sad status quo. Who made the rules? Who is responsible for the manic workplace where child-bearing or child-rearing women are kept down or out, where there is an institutional expectation that money buys a person night and day? Blokes like Alan Sugar and Gordon Brown did.
I sometimes wonder how much the PM sees of his sick, young boy. The current unremitting pressure on him must affect his family duties. Women can at least escape; men are stuck in the mud, flailing.
A downturn in the economy may correct, moderate our misshapen work culture. At the same time it may be too late for that. When women no longer want positions held by men, you know the system is irredeemably rotten. The glass ceiling will fall because the edifice is unsupported and unsustainable. Soon I hope. Then we can construct a clement world of work, and full of possibilities, for all of us.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
125 Comments
My boss used ot take time out to see to his father who was (is) suffering dementia. Everyone knew, and he worked from home partly to allow that work life balance. It is harder and rarer for men than women, but like many things, change is happening albeit slowly.
The article is broadly correct though, its more ok for women to look after relatives and downgrade their careers then for men. Even the wives of the men wont like it if it means their life style suffers - man is still meant to be the main provider for most women, otherwise he is not perceived to be a man.
Posted by Neil Murphy | 14.09.08, 12:23 GMT
Jono - London is in the hands of Russians, Arabs, Americans of all creeds) all kinds of races and religions. Have a look at the league tables of the richest people in Britain, or the largest asset owners.
Posted by t.andre | 11.09.08, 19:11 GMT
ipkjzq jygi. If thats about Yasmins article, she makes some very interesting observations, though obscured by the id politics language imo. If about my comments, no doubt a fair bit of rambling verbiage, but meant as suggestions on educating people with no concept of a good education to give all our descendents a better society with less `us and them & intended in that context.
(I like your comment if its just your signature random graffito)
Posted by nfrith | 11.09.08, 15:56 GMT
The enduring gender gap remains competitveness but there is no shame in men not fitting that profile.
Some good points nfrtih
Have you anything constructive to say xwhatever
Posted by bigbangsimulator | 11.09.08, 12:48 GMT
dacujw vqauhfmrk gzwjdh gapeut pmjdvxo kgpaujw eoicgvz
Posted by ipkjzq jygi | 11.09.08, 08:42 GMT
(& truly lastly that wasn't quite right either, the bit about ages - `by the way', not `in a way' and mean that not prejudging outcomes is an important principle!)
Posted by nfrith | 10.09.08, 15:32 GMT
That was meant to be as in `SO' not `so' (in tone!)
Lastly, also agree w. you abt not prejudging the outcome of that complaint case (believe their ages do add another dimension, in a way)
P.s. there was quite a big nice group at the football (various colours) - they just seemed invisible and didn't want their kids to feel the tension!
Posted by nfrith | 10.09.08, 15:00 GMT
apart from on here (!) (tho. not at all scientific really just people I know...).
I have witnessed the simmering vicious kind of prejudice - among some white dads/black dads at a junior football match in a self- (group-?)consciously `wwc enclave' & saw how `race' works with people like that - but tbh felt all the dads involved could have done with a lot of mind-improving, or the army (Wellington on his troops......) Fighting Martians or stg tho., as goes against the int. law ethos. Put to work fighting the latest genocidists, maybe.
Anyway, so agree w. you on importance of talking (do prefer one-on one dialogue to group-on-group experience dialogue, tho., unless groups really, really carefully differentiated).
Posted by nfrith | 10.09.08, 14:41 GMT
with family and work), certainly that kind of outlook would be better (somehow) institutionalized in urban schools than just drawing rigid lines based entirely on the (not really very differentiating at all barely any in-depth detail of parental educational background, for ex.) way they compile statistics blunt, crudely-drawn stats really state-intrusive, anyway - should make cleverer ones or else let the indiv. opt out, I think (part of evolving ideology!).
Ive often noticed that where I live more `middle class well-ed. background kids gravitate towards each other naturally & confidently, while stronger `colour groups tend to be more common among the others, tho. there is a relaxed attitude between most of them just an observation, tho.
Anyway, sure most people really do want to get on with others and look for the best in them - Ive never heard of anyone say they dont want a failing child to succeed, for ex., or another mass `group to succeed
Posted by nfrith | 10.09.08, 14:25 GMT
which should incl. the heritage side of things; humanities - not sure how) to contextualize socially same going for the great Af., Car., As, writers included - social context important, but there first and foremost as brilliant individuals - the main part of the `ideology' being enforced in a (v.) authoritarian way here wld be excellence + passion + encouraging subtle thought processes... Some pupils would hate it, but would give more opportunity to more of them...Maybe its just some schools that dont use Eng. etc. etc. etc. productively already (and the intentions of the others prob. well-meaning).
Think less simplistic talk about groups should be encouraged through govt policy (or the way the media describe these things - not sure how tho.) and that more fluidity of perception is needed, and more recognition of the moderate, fluid, forward-looking middle ground (where people of all colours, roots, backgrounds, etc. have more in common with each other, just getting on with
Posted by nfrith | 10.09.08, 13:56 GMT
125 Comments