This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/women-part-timers-ball-breakers-sexism

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why women part-timers should be full-time ball-breakers Why women part-timers should be full-time ball-breakers
(2 months later)
Now is the only time I will ever say this (it applies in one area alone, and is based entirely on anecdata and no evidence): on the matter of part-time work, I genuinely think women are stupid.Now is the only time I will ever say this (it applies in one area alone, and is based entirely on anecdata and no evidence): on the matter of part-time work, I genuinely think women are stupid.
Roll back your chair, right now, and look around – in every corner of every office, you'll see a woman doing a four-day week, for four days' money. That's not the bit I think is stupid. It is an ideal, all the way from Keynes to Scandinavia, that as our productivity increases, instead of matching it with needless consumption, we should pare back working hours and instead spend time with our families, or learning the violin, or … you know … reading. Indeed, this is as close as you'd get to a capitalist vision of utopia, the idea that we'd reach perfect self-actualisation – accomplished, erudite, rested, always available to the people we loved – not by ripping up the system and starting again, but by maximising our efficiency and output.Roll back your chair, right now, and look around – in every corner of every office, you'll see a woman doing a four-day week, for four days' money. That's not the bit I think is stupid. It is an ideal, all the way from Keynes to Scandinavia, that as our productivity increases, instead of matching it with needless consumption, we should pare back working hours and instead spend time with our families, or learning the violin, or … you know … reading. Indeed, this is as close as you'd get to a capitalist vision of utopia, the idea that we'd reach perfect self-actualisation – accomplished, erudite, rested, always available to the people we loved – not by ripping up the system and starting again, but by maximising our efficiency and output.
No, working part-time is not why women are stupid. Loads of people (25% of Britons) work 30 hours or less; and though not all are women, most – very nearly 6 million out of 8 million, are.No, working part-time is not why women are stupid. Loads of people (25% of Britons) work 30 hours or less; and though not all are women, most – very nearly 6 million out of 8 million, are.
But what I've always noticed is that women who work part-time hours and get paid for part-time hours, do full-time jobs. They constantly rush, they never chat, they finish things at home, they simply do the whole lot faster. I know, I know; it's not evidence-based. It doesn't even have the solidity of impartial observation – I've probably got an availability bias, where I think of working mothers as working harder than everybody else, and my mind filters out the ones who are just loafing about on Facebook, putting off leaving work until they're sure they won't get roped into a child's bedtime.But what I've always noticed is that women who work part-time hours and get paid for part-time hours, do full-time jobs. They constantly rush, they never chat, they finish things at home, they simply do the whole lot faster. I know, I know; it's not evidence-based. It doesn't even have the solidity of impartial observation – I've probably got an availability bias, where I think of working mothers as working harder than everybody else, and my mind filters out the ones who are just loafing about on Facebook, putting off leaving work until they're sure they won't get roped into a child's bedtime.
Even that isn't the bit I think is stupid: I have nothing against people who work too hard. What I think is stupid is that they resolutely hide, deny, fail even to believe themselves, how valuable they are. "I'm afraid I don't work Wednesdays," they say, sheepishly, as if they've just told you that they've missed a deadline that was arranged months before. They should be shouting it from the rooftops: "Can you believe I don't work Wednesdays? When I get this much done, and am this pivotal?"Even that isn't the bit I think is stupid: I have nothing against people who work too hard. What I think is stupid is that they resolutely hide, deny, fail even to believe themselves, how valuable they are. "I'm afraid I don't work Wednesdays," they say, sheepishly, as if they've just told you that they've missed a deadline that was arranged months before. They should be shouting it from the rooftops: "Can you believe I don't work Wednesdays? When I get this much done, and am this pivotal?"
Anyway, relax, we're about to move from my hand-picked sample of 23 into real evidence. You'd think that if you had a core of your workforce who heaped pressure upon themselves, who appeared to be working faster out of guilt, that you'd value them very highly. You'd readily recruit them, you'd fight to keep them, and you'd reward their industry with money and status.Anyway, relax, we're about to move from my hand-picked sample of 23 into real evidence. You'd think that if you had a core of your workforce who heaped pressure upon themselves, who appeared to be working faster out of guilt, that you'd value them very highly. You'd readily recruit them, you'd fight to keep them, and you'd reward their industry with money and status.
Yet they are not valued. The Timewise Foundation has just produced a report – the first of its kind – on the lived experience of working part-time. It has chosen to survey people earning £20,000 to £100,000 (full-time equivalent), since the challenges facing part-timers on low wages are different (zero-hours contracts, lack of security) and have been documented elsewhere.Yet they are not valued. The Timewise Foundation has just produced a report – the first of its kind – on the lived experience of working part-time. It has chosen to survey people earning £20,000 to £100,000 (full-time equivalent), since the challenges facing part-timers on low wages are different (zero-hours contracts, lack of security) and have been documented elsewhere.
The results are conclusive: employers simply aren't recruiting part-timers; 77% of people say they feel trapped in their current job because there's nowhere to move; 73% say they haven't had a pay rise or a promotion since reducing their hours; 34% say they don't feel as valued as full-timers; 11% say they feel invisible. The average salary sacrifice was £6,730. This is a picture of people taking jobs below their skill level, and making no progress thereafter.The results are conclusive: employers simply aren't recruiting part-timers; 77% of people say they feel trapped in their current job because there's nowhere to move; 73% say they haven't had a pay rise or a promotion since reducing their hours; 34% say they don't feel as valued as full-timers; 11% say they feel invisible. The average salary sacrifice was £6,730. This is a picture of people taking jobs below their skill level, and making no progress thereafter.
The hawkeyed will have noticed I simply elided "part-time women" with "working mothers". In fact, stats are a little shaky on the precise reason why people choose to work part-time – the Office for National Statistics doesn't ask, so even while we've got a good picture of how large this issue is and the male/female split within it, we don't know what proportion of women cut their hours because of caring responsibilities. The Timewise survey did ask: 48% of women went part-time to look after their children. However, this is a sample of high-earners, and it seems likely that among low-earners the proportion would be higher; it's harder to make work pay when your earnings are no greater than your nursery costs.The hawkeyed will have noticed I simply elided "part-time women" with "working mothers". In fact, stats are a little shaky on the precise reason why people choose to work part-time – the Office for National Statistics doesn't ask, so even while we've got a good picture of how large this issue is and the male/female split within it, we don't know what proportion of women cut their hours because of caring responsibilities. The Timewise survey did ask: 48% of women went part-time to look after their children. However, this is a sample of high-earners, and it seems likely that among low-earners the proportion would be higher; it's harder to make work pay when your earnings are no greater than your nursery costs.
I suspect, though I can't say for certain, that the low status of the part-timer is down to straight sexism, since they are mainly women; I strongly suspect that the guilt expected from the working mother has eroded her ability to lobby hard for her own interests.I suspect, though I can't say for certain, that the low status of the part-timer is down to straight sexism, since they are mainly women; I strongly suspect that the guilt expected from the working mother has eroded her ability to lobby hard for her own interests.
Clearly there's a problem of perception on the employer side; it takes more than logistical clarity to consider a part-timer for a senior role. You also need an imagination – you need to be able to conceive of a person who shows their commitment some other way than round-the-clock availability.Clearly there's a problem of perception on the employer side; it takes more than logistical clarity to consider a part-timer for a senior role. You also need an imagination – you need to be able to conceive of a person who shows their commitment some other way than round-the-clock availability.
But part-timers need to change as well – they need to start asserting themselves, negotiating on the basis that their hours are a blessing, not a curse. They need to reject the narrative of the Facebook boss Sheryl Sandberg that working less is "taking your foot off the gas". They need to remind the world that prioritising your work over all other things doesn't necessarily make you any good at it: having a rounded life, as well as making you a better and faster employee, may well indicate that you are a more analytical and forward-thinking person.But part-timers need to change as well – they need to start asserting themselves, negotiating on the basis that their hours are a blessing, not a curse. They need to reject the narrative of the Facebook boss Sheryl Sandberg that working less is "taking your foot off the gas". They need to remind the world that prioritising your work over all other things doesn't necessarily make you any good at it: having a rounded life, as well as making you a better and faster employee, may well indicate that you are a more analytical and forward-thinking person.
In short, part-timers need to reclaim the word "part-timer". Turn it into a barbed compliment, like "ball-breaker" or "deal-maker", to convey: "Don't mess with this person. She's a part-timer."In short, part-timers need to reclaim the word "part-timer". Turn it into a barbed compliment, like "ball-breaker" or "deal-maker", to convey: "Don't mess with this person. She's a part-timer."
Twitter: @zoesqwilliamsTwitter: @zoesqwilliams
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.