Changing Social Ideals on Women's Roles

The topic of women in the working arena of the business world is always one that interests me; partly because there is a raging change in the dynamics between (the slowly, but surely) increasing numbers of women in the workforce and the potential problems that spark, but mainly because I am part of this dynamic change myself. There are a lot of challenges that come with being a woman, or a mother, in the workplace. It is challenging because companies do not typically have child-friendly policies such as maternal/paternal leave, day care services, work-from-home days, etc. Top management has typically been dominated by male figures that have (historically) let the nurturing take place in the home by women who were assigned those gender-binding life-styles. These employers did not (and still do not, in many cases) look at potential mothers-to-be in a positive light or at least in similar regards as they would towards expecting fathers. This is either because they feel as if women should not work, or truly believe that women are incapable of work competency while also having a family. No one says it is easy to “have it all,” but yet men have balanced a work and family life for centuries. These arguments can also reflect on the problems of unequal wages.

For one woman’s case, if she chooses to have kids first, she runs the risk of sinking in society’s pressures of putting her career on hold in order to be there for the child. She could “choose” to stay at home, but why should anyone have to choose when there is a perfectly capable father whom can also take on this role? Why is there no assumption of placing his career on hold as he cares for his children?  Going further, why should this choice be so limited? If (back to the first argument) companies had child-friendly, or, to be more precise, gender-friendly policies in place, there would be elimination in any choice between work or family. Having the privilege to enrich your life with public and private life would become the norm, rather than placing one value on hold (career) to make room for another (family). Then it would just be a matter of “I don’t want to work,” instead of “I don’t want to work because I want to see my child grow up.” 

For another woman’s case, if she chooses not to have kids and continue pursuing her career instead, she is robbed of living the other half of her desires. Tell me again, why can’t we have it all? The scary part is, staying at home longer means your skill sets begin to rust. You feel dusty. This could be just another “fair” reason for employers to choose a more “suitable” candidate.

The problem is not with women’s ability and skill and the correlation to their gender. I have met countless idiots whom have very good jobs; I do not see any connections to their gender. The problem is not women in the work force, whether we are talking about including or excluding them in certain fields. The PROBLEM is with top management, employers, government, politics and society’s ATTITUDES about women in public life. Women taking over new leadership positions can introduce new communication and management styles that are new and diverse. People are uncomfortable with new, and they tend to fear the diverse. It is ok to fear and have negative opinions on what one does not know or understand. But times are changing and it is also time to change society’s minds about its negative attitudes. 

It is a very difficult concept to understand and grasp, unless one is truly sitting down and studying gender theories, historical oppression, and systematic complications to arrive to the conclusions of the way in which society operates in today.  This is not to say that men do not suffer from these experiences or perhaps experiences of their own that women cannot understand or empathize with, but I will argue that although there is no hierarchy of oppression, it isn't called a “man’s world”  for no reason.