Great article and great news. I did wonder when reading it, whether the low volume of submissions might be because of the tendency within the academy is self-censor potentially controversial ideas before they even begin to germinate. I also came up with a pretty controversial area for study myself. Feminists have been making demand for greater gender equity on corporate boards for some time. Presumably, the imagined goal is 50% representation. But given we know that roughly 20% of women want to be homemakers, 20% want to pursue a career single-mindedly and 60% opt for a healthy work-to-life balance, is this a realistic goal? And if anything the 60% of women in the middle group report wanting to spend more time at home, but less time at work.
My proposal would be for a study which looked at the distribution of talent across this spectrum, because at least then we would have a guide as to what is a realistic expectation. Because if all the talent is concentrated in the career-minded 20% then it is not unrealistic demand. We also need data on women’s work commitments when they return to work after having kids- because dropping from 70 hours a week to 50, isn’t going to deliver the same returns, in terms of career development. Plus, with most jobs consisting of a set workload of maintainer tasks, which don’t add value in terms of personal development, so it’s not a flat pro rata comparison.
This is not to say that women returning to the workforce after having kids aren’t discriminated against, because they are. And companies which had been able to incorporate programs like job sharing have an inherent advantage because they possess additional redundant capacity when the situation demands it. But we need to ask these questions, purely from the point of view of giving employees realistic expectations as to what is possible, and more importantly, what is not. Then there is the argument that whilst we persist with the notion that all disparity is sexism, we will never be able to track down the real root causes, and propose sensible solutions where appropriate. It might also be the case that entrepreneurship and venture capital might be ignoring a potential lucrative sector catering specifically to women re-entering the workforce after having children.
It is also worth noting that the most egalitarian countries seem to negatively correlate with exclusively career focused women, through the exercise of personal choice. When Sweden decided it needed more gender equity within its corporate boards, they were forced to actively recruit from America in order to find the women with the experience and career focus required, because a higher proportion of Swedish women had historically chosen a healthier work-to-life balance.
Now, I know, I know- an equitable society would see men shouldering a larger share of burden in terms of child rearing. It’s a point with which I entirely agree, especially when we consider the benefits of activities such as rough play- with father nurture proven to improve cognitive abilities and motor skills, as well as improving emotional health and wellbeing across a range of key indices. But we can’t ignore the fact that often the current division of labour amongst couples is often made entirely voluntarily. In addition, I would argue that the answer here is not to stridently demand that men do more, but rather to buy them a copy of Dr Warren Farrell’s The Boy Crisis, so they can understand that the male approach to parenting is intrinsically valuable as a heterodox and distinct entity, ignored or overlooked at their peril.
There is too much in the way of coercion in our culture, in the demand for more education of men, when often this is meant as an induction into standard feminist orthodoxies. My question would be why bother? When you might achieve exactly the same results with a more nuanced approach which emphasises men’s value as men. If a father reads a book which shows that spending too much time in the office, at the expense of time spent playing with his kids, could potentially hinder his children’s full development, wouldn’t the resulting shift in his priorities result in more gender equity, as his comparative advantage from working longer hours reduces? Apart from anything else, actuarial studies have shown that although health risks from work are only incrementally higher beyond 42 hours, but after 47 hours per week the gradient of health risk begins to steepen. So if we don’t want men dying unnecessarily early, perhaps it’s time to ask them not to work themselves to death, prematurely.
There also might be all sorts of hidden benefits in deciding to design more equal parenting with a view to individual differences between the sexes. If you are mother who asks the man to intercede more often as your daughter hits the terrible teens, it could mean she might be more likely to return your call when she’s in her twenties. Also, paternal leave might be more usefully deployed further into childhood development as an addition to regular annual leave, rather than in the first year- where, let’s face it- men are pretty useless. A better alternative might be a stored bank of paternal leave.
Given we know that sports participation raises academic performance in terms of GPA, as the discipline of physical training cross-pollinates into academic study, fathers coaching their children in sports might be one highly productive way of utilising a stored bank of paternal leave- quite apart from possibly remedying the upset and heartbreak which inevitably follows when a parent can’t make it to a child’s recital or performance. It might even be the case that paternal leave as a deferral might give women a much needed slight advantage with their careers, given that some bosses might see that store of paternal leave as an inconvenience which can’t be planned for.
We need to develop a more humanist way of looking at the world, in valuing men and women’s differences, rather than imagining we are exactly the same. I know there is an element of social construction to gender, but this is not necessarily the only factor. And part of that equation is not being afraid to ask difficult questions, even if some don’t necessarily like the answers they bring.
There is also a strong argument that many areas of business don’t necessarily take of advantage of women’s particular strengths. I’ve often wondered whether the tech sector might benefit from a specialist role embedded with software engineering specifically dealing with pitching to superiors, team resourcing and mediation, and various other soft skills. It’s been my experience that software types tend to argue for specific upgrades which don’t get resourced, simply because they haven’t considered the broader business implications of the improvements they are suggesting. Of course, I’m not suggesting that this role would be exclusively staffed by women, but there is ample evidence it might appeal to young women more, especially as an incentive to enter a career where female participation is underrepresented to say the least.
In conclusion, just because there might be good reasons why corporate boards shouldn’t be entirely 50/50, there is equally an argument that in other areas of public life we need more participation, not less. Mandatory seat belt laws might have been far more prevalent across the Western world, far more quickly-saving countless lives- if women’s political representation had been more equal. The same can be said of a whole raft of public policies. In particular, given the highly informative series of articles made by Krystal Ball on The Hill’s Rising News Show featuring a whole series of products which product safety legislation didn’t appear to make safe, an influx of female doctors and scientists entering public office might be just what the doctor ordered.
Thank you both for your kind comments! On the subject of CEO performance it appears to be identical is every way bar one. There is a real chance that cultural pressure from feminist activists might have led to high powered women being promoted a few years before they had all the experience they needed- the only discernible difference I found was they had a 30% increased chance of being asked to move on in the five years following their promotion to CEO. Some might call this a heavy price to pay- sacrificing extraordinarily capable women- for what is surely only a narrow political and cultural victory. Great question!
Hmm, the kids thing seems particularly bad. Nothing like trying to teach kids the wrong life lessons. A good example might be rugby versus football (soccer). In Africa, soccer is generally seen as one way for athletically gifted kids to escape poverty. Does this mean we should quota adjust both, potentially robbing a gifted Black kid of a lucrative future career in the UK's Premier League?
Good read, as usual, Geary. On a related note, yesterday I happened to tune into a discussion on the radio about S. Africa's new "Black Empowerment" bill (don't know if it's law or just proposed) that mandates specific quotas on various things, including 51% black representation on corporate boards, a limit on number of what kids on sports teams, etc.!? Nothing like a little racism to cure racism . . .
Thank you both for your kind comments! On the subject of CEO performance it appears to be identical is every way bar one. There is a real chance that cultural pressure from feminist activists might have led to high powered women being promoted a few years before they had all the experience they needed- the only discernible difference I found was they had a 30% increased chance of being asked to move on in the five years following their promotion to CEO. Some might call this a heavy price to pay- sacrificing extraordinarily capable women- for what is surely only a narrow political and cultural victory. Great question!
Hmm, the kids thing seems particularly bad. Nothing like trying to teach kids the wrong life lessons. A good example might be rugby versus football (soccer). In Africa, soccer is generally seen as one way for athletically gifted kids to escape poverty. Does this mean we should quota adjust both, potentially robbing a gifted Black kid of a lucrative future career in the UK's Premier League?
Good read, as usual, Geary. On a related note, yesterday I happened to tune into a discussion on the radio about S. Africa's new "Black Empowerment" bill (don't know if it's law or just proposed) that mandates specific quotas on various things, including 51% black representation on corporate boards, a limit on number of what kids on sports teams, etc.!? Nothing like a little racism to cure racism . . .
Good stuff! Especially on the role of fathers and the recommendation of Warren Farrell’s book.