Sunday, November 27, 2011

Survey: male provider role unchanged in 35 years

The male provider role is still going strong in Australia. Bettina Arndt has discussed some research data which shows that the amount of paid work undertaken by women has barely changed since the mid-1970s.

It's true that female workforce participation rates have risen since the 1960s from 33% to 58%. But that includes women working only a few hours a week and those unemployed but looking for work. But when it comes to full-time work there has been no significant change:

One of the most stubborn characteristics of the Australian workforce is women's rejection of full-time work. The Australian National University economist Bob Gregory sums up the data: ''Despite the rapid increase in education levels, despite large changes in social attitudes towards married women working in the labour market, despite large increases in labour market rewards and despite increased labour market involvement, the proportion of women 15 to 59 employed full time is much the same as it was 35 years ago.''

Nor have women's part-time work hours increased much:

women's weekly part-time working hours show very little overall rise - barely an hour over 30 years.

The conclusion drawn by Arndt is that husbands are being unfairly castigated for not doing a larger proportion of unpaid work when women have not increased their proportion of paid work.

The response from the female readers is interesting. Some agree that the paid and unpaid work balances out:

In my own household my husband earns 95% of the income (working very long hours) and does 5% of the unpaid housework/child care. I earn 5% of the income and happily do 95% of the unpaid housework/child care.

But then one woman had this ungrateful thought toward her own husband:

Yes Bettina, my husband plays on his iPad on the long commute. Likewise his long lunch is a "work-related activity". Do you really think this tripe helps men? You may like to consider that reading your articles makes many women feel very stabby towards them.

Another took the PC line that there are no natural preferences at work but that it's all due to socialisation:

you do not discuss why women are 'rejecting' full-time work. (No, it's not because as a female I am 'biologically hardwired' to be a snuggly nurturer all my life.) You do not go into any of the cultural or social background which could lead to such a rejection.

But most of the comments, from men and women, agree with Arndt - and that's in a newspaper with a largely lefty readership:

Reader 1: At last, someone tells the truth of what I see around me and what my own experience is. Why would I have kids and spend all week working and commuting?

Reader 2: Arndt's comments are absolutely true. Many academics and journalists are determined to trot out the party line on women and work, ignoring the clear evidence to the contrary. For example, did the media ever pick up on the obvious fact that ABC childcare went broke because contrary to the rhetoric, there is not an enormous unmet need for childcare in Australia, other than in affluent inner urban areas? Childcare centres in the suburbs and the urban fringe, where the majority of kids live, have plenty of spaces, because most of the children's mothers are not working or working in ways that still allow them to care for their children. You never hear this story because it doesn't match the approved story we are meant to be telling.

Reader 3: I generally agree with your article. Put simply, any women I know of about my age (mid 30's) in a relationship with children either do not work, or at least do not work full time. Nor do they seem to be ever intending to work full time again.

My conclusion? Women can be hypercareerist in their 20s and that can be demoralising to their male peers. The men ask themselves why they should bother trying to keep up when society doesn't want them as providers anyway. But the female hypercareerism doesn't last in the large majority of cases.

I've seen that happen many times. I've seen strongly feminist women who have sworn over and over that they weren't maternal types suddenly get jack of it all, pressure their boyfriends into marriage, have a child and quit their jobs.

So one conclusion is that men shouldn't accept that the male provider role is redundant. It's not by a long way.

But there's one more conclusion to draw. Even on the right there is often an assumption that women's greatest aim in life is to be a full-time careerist. Therefore, if you support the traditional family you might be criticised for trying to impose a masculine bias on women or trying to support a policy that women will rise up against collectively.

But the reality seems to be that even after decades of the state and the political class trying to impress a careerist world view on women, that most women aren't buying into it - that they really do want to focus on their families and that they don't see full-time careerism as the path to self-actualisation.

So I don't think traditionalists have much to lose in supporting the traditional family. We can afford to be a bit flexible when it comes to female workforce participation; all that we really need to do as a minimum is to continue to uphold the male provider role in society.

34 comments:

  1. Mark Richardson says: "I don't think traditionalists have much to lose in supporting the traditional family."

    Fair enough, Mr Richardson. But we have plenty to lose in giving carte-blanche to careerists like Bettina Arndt.

    It is true that what she has been saying over the last 15 years has been very markedly less idiotic and pernicious than what she was saying before then in her role as junk-media "sexpert", and she might even be a genuinely agreeable person to meet now. Alas, she will need to do a lot more (the old-fashioned concept of public repentance for her youthful championship of debauchery might help) before traditionalists greet her as anything other than a fair-weather friend. The phrase "Sup with the Devil but use a long spoon" has lost none of its immediacy in 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with what you are saying but I think this may not reflect the coming generation (born in the 80's) who are now in the stage of their lives where they are thinking about getting married. I suspect a larger proportion of men in this generation will not be accepting the provider role automatically for myriad reasons discussed here and elsewhere in blogsphere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. you do not discuss why women are 'rejecting' full-time work. (No, it's not because as a female I am 'biologically hardwired' to be a snuggly nurturer all my life.) You do not go into any of the cultural or social background which could lead to such a rejection.

    To the contrary. If anything most women are feed liberal beliefs. There's little mainstream push for women to become wives and homemakers compared to the feminist message.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I work with a number of professional women, most of whom are aged under 40. I've worked in my job for more than 20 years. I watch them come, I watch them grow old(er). Being smart girls, most of them have one or two children before they hit 40. Few now work full-time. They seem happy with their lot. The most unhappy women are the ones married to their jobs. A somewhat empty pursuit I must say.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh...I get it. After they have spent their twenties getting that degree, running up the credit and student loans, sleeping with every guy they can, being demeaning to family orientated men, taking jobs away from men who are interested in supporting their families and then, upon reaching the magical age of 30 they are suddenly ready for the family life and being a stay at home mom with a full time husband provider.

    Come on Mark, give a normal guy like me a real reason to work my butt off to be a proper provider for a young women worthy of marriage.

    Truthfully, I think these women buy hook, line and sinker into the feminist dogma and then take it as their "right" to choose to be a stay at home mom. The man gets no choice at all. In true feminist fashion the world revolves around what women want!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Come on Mark, give a normal guy like me a real reason to work my butt off to be a proper provider for a young women worthy of marriage.

    Normal guy, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the current "deal" is not one that men should accept.

    But nor should men accept the loss of opportunity to become husbands and fathers.

    So where does that leave us? It means that we have to act together to change things.

    Either we men do something or we lose out one way or another.

    There are various things we can do to make a difference.

    We can publicise the fact that many women who defer family formation until their 30s in favour of a single girl lifestyle will find themselves having to settle in a much bigger way than if they acted earlier and that they risk losing reproductive choice by leaving motherhood until their 30s.

    We can also criticise the underlying principles of liberal society which encourage delayed family formation.

    And we can begin the process of establishing more conservative institutions in society in which women are brought up to marry younger.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This has nothing really to do with being a male provider. It's more of an escape, by women, of the duty and responsibility they wanted with respect to the so called, "feminist revolution". Women thought that a career would give them freedom, but instead found out that it was boring, took all their time and made them undesirable. The feminist revolution was a war against men which men were not allowed to defend themselves against. A one sided onslaught with men having both hands and both their feet tied in knots.

    A woman can hit, slap and punch a man to their hearts content but a man must never hit a woman, ever! In the same way, to fight the feminists, would be akin to slapping a woman, after she threw a tantrum and hit you with a baseball bat.

    These career women don't deserve marriage, they broke the contract, they are in breach and therefore they should suffer the consequences on their own. No, that's cruel! Ok...They can have 20 cats to keep them company!

    If women truly wanted to be the equals of men, then they need to live by that. If you start a career you must work till you're 65 years of age and then you can retire, well...Maybe retire, depending on whether your pension fund hasn't been raided by the government to pay for the welfare of a newly arrived immigrant family, who of course, add diversity and life to an otherwise monotonally white, unimaginatively boring and unworthy of existence, pre 1960ties Western society.

    Society is sick, it must be put down.

    ReplyDelete
  8. women get to 30 and say "where have all the decent men gone"
    women! you take the jobs they could of had in their twenties to start a career for themselves for your own selfish 10 year stint in pretending to be a man.
    Then when you come out of it there are no men with careers.
    The "man drought" is created by careerist women who knock out their competition (men) who are their own potential partners.
    The irony is delicious.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Normal Guy & Anon1114 are BANG ON. Women made this mess; women broke the social contract; let THEM suffer the consequences! The only thing we, as men, can do is to see that these women (really all women under 70) get the husband they deserve-none...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Remember: marriage is slavery & oppression for women! I don't know about you, but I'm against slavery & oppression of women, hehehe... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Again, I agree with the analysis of what's wrong but disagree with the response. According to MarkyMark no woman under the age of 70 deserves a husband. That means that no man should marry; that all men should miss out on being a husband and father; and that Western society should go under and be taken over by other traditions without any effort to restore it to more worthwhile foundations.

    If that's really to be the attitude why even bother with politics?

    The enemy isn't women. The enemy is the political culture which encourages women to act destructively in their 20s.

    The aim is not to seek revenge on women as a sex, but to unleash our talents and energies as men to either change the mainstream political culture or to establish alternative cultures and institutions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Western society should go under and be taken over by other traditions."

    What are you talking about Mark, have you been out of the leafy suburbs of the East lately?

    Its a done deal, when I discuss issues espoused on this blog with Anglo Australians they simply hang their heads and shrug.

    ReplyDelete
  13. you know you mra & mgtow types really piss me off sometimes. For your I am a 40 yr old woman who was handed a world just like you were. I did not burn a bra, march for era or change the family court laws. I was handed this world and just like you relied on the elders of my culture to guide me. So yes I got a college education b/c that was what I was brought up to do. No I didn't think you could find fullfilment in being a homemaker & mother b/c I was never shown that example, in fact the opposite was pounded into me. Imagine my surprise when I was deep in a career and found it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Even more surprising once I had a child I found I actually enjoyed being a housewife and according to my happy husband I was good at it. So now I sit home taking care of the house, children, finances, volunteering in the community and enjoying it. I never expected to be a SAHM nor planned it. But, here I am. I love it being a SAHM. No neferious plot or entitlement mentality, just upset I was duped into believing that this lifestyle choice was somehow wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "you know you mra & mgtow types really piss me off sometimes. "

    YES HOW DARE THEY. How dare those young men complain that they are missing job and career oppertunities because of women. How dare they suicide in greater numbers than women HOW UTTERLY SELFISH.
    You are right these suffering disenfranchised males piss me off too.
    It must be hard for you living comfortably off your husband after you found that career life was horribly boring, having to listen to these ungrateful suffering males complain about the reality of the situation must be very depressing while you flick through day time tv.
    My heart goes out to you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You know there is another group of people besides obviously men who get hurt hard by careerist women.
    That group is other women.
    All the women who are full time stay at home mums who depend on their husband they suffer when their husband can't get a job because of careerist women, is blocked from being promoted because of careerist women, or can no longer get back into his profession because of careerist women.
    Even if say both partners are working then the woman can still be hurt hard by careerist women who impact on her husbands ability to work.
    If the situation ever falls to the women pulling most of the income the relationship can end.
    Careerist women destroy families, society and more importantly other womens dreams of a stable family and motherhood.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What are you talking about Mark, have you been out of the leafy suburbs of the East lately?

    I work in the northern suburbs.

    Its a done deal

    No, it's not. There are still young Anglo kids being brought up today.

    It's true that many men have sunk into a passively demoralised condition - it's been that way for decades.

    The start will have to come from a smaller number of men. I'm confident that if something solid were achieved even at the local level that you would then attract considerable support. It's the first step which is the most difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with Mark it isn't a done deal. His idea of a traditionalist community is a great idea. I differ in opinion with him in that I believe western males should emmigrate to wherever they find acceptance.
    To me emmigrating is the same as joining a tradcon community its breaking away from Australian life.
    I would dearly love to particpate in such a community in Australia. I simply can't, I do not have the material wealth in this country to do anything. Overseas I have options that are very real in my case.
    Maybe some day I would like to return to Australia and assist in reinforcing a traditional community.
    At the moment like I said im no use to anyone here.
    I must emmigrate or my life is over in this shitty liberal anglosphere hellhole where i am not wanted by anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The situation is anything but a done deal and very much open because anglo people and men in particular are just beginning to rouse themselves or become aware. If people are "shaking heir heads' its because they don't have suitable answers to the situation or are unsure, its not that they're resigned to it.

    Consequently what we do is vitally important and wasting your time on pointless pursuits, eg partying, doesn't help.

    ReplyDelete
  19. For those who say "the forces arrayed are too strong" I would encourage you to find heart and motivation and remember that an awful lot is achievable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "the forces arrayed are too strong" Its not necessarily that the forces arrayed are too strong.
    They are actually rather pathetic and could be ended with some sane government and societal changes.
    They issue is western acquiescence and our leaders who may aswell just openly admit they are open borders marxists because it isn't getting any more obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Guys,

    The changes we may all want are NOT going to happen. Why? Because women don't want them; that's why! Women comprise the majority of voters; here in the USA, they comprise about 52% of voters. Women tend to vote for 'Team Woman'. Women are also more liberal than men; they're far more inclined to socialism than men are, especially when they're single. In short, we have the society we do because that's what WOMEN want-end of discussion.

    MarkyMark

    ReplyDelete
  22. What about those men who force their wives to work while they stay home to play Mummy? It disgusts me that these men have no trouble deciding that the career the woman would gladly give up, is more profitable than theirs. And then, they turn around and belittle SAHMs.

    I suppose I see this from a woman's point of view and that when these reports on ACA come on- the woman's smile doesn't quite reach her eyes as she talks about her job and that her husband gets to raise their child(ren) as a stay-at-home dad.

    So yes, careerist women are to blame but many of these modern liberal 'men' put stipulations on their 'partners' like must have a career and engineer policies in Canberra to make it easier.

    These men, when in contact, hear that a girl does not have a career and wants what a normal woman should and blanch. Believe me, dating as a traditional conservative girl is not enjoyable especially when their deal breaker in a relationship is because you won't go to their beds unmarried.

    Chastity counts so those of us who are sensible feminine women have a hard time of it too, especially when as a young woman, I'm shy around men in public I don't know.

    Just as a side note- I never considered that what I despair of in Australia and the world was Marxism with a capitalistic slant until I came to this blog. Now, I don't see how I missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have yet to meet a tradcon in Melbourne under the age of 50.

    High immigration, check
    High birthrates to immigrants, check
    Churches closing down, check
    Expansion in temples/mosques, check
    Government expansion, check
    Feminism increasing, check

    True tradcons are moving outside of Melbourne setting up pockets that won't amount to squat.

    For goodness sakes our Prime minster is a never married, childless avowed socialist!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have yet to meet a tradcon in Melbourne under the age of 50.

    I live in Melbourne and am under the age of 50. So too are the other tradcons I have met in my local area.

    True tradcons are moving outside of Melbourne setting up pockets that won't amount to squat.

    I doubt if they are moving outside of Melbourne in an organised way. I haven't heard of any such groups.

    But if they are, then we should do what we can to support them rather than immediately writing them off.

    For goodness sakes our Prime minster is a never married, childless avowed socialist!

    And the married ones with children from the right-wing parties were just as bad.

    We know that the political establishment isn't going to act on our behalf. We have to get over our passive dependence on the state. We're the ones who have to act steadily and patiently to move things in a better direction.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "These men, when in contact, hear that a girl does not have a career and wants what a normal woman should and blanch. Believe me, dating as a traditional conservative girl is not enjoyable especially when their deal breaker in a relationship is because you won't go to their beds unmarried."

    And I find it hard to find traditionalist conservative women in my age range (i.e. under 25). Where are you!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Do you share an age with your age range, out of curiosity? I know age range does not necessitate an actual age sometimes and other times it does. As to where I am, well in my imagination I'm in an ivory tower.
    The tower thing has been on my mind since my sister said if my hair grew much longer I could be Rapunzel although I don’t think waist length hair is that long.

    Reality wise I’m somewhere in Australia and ever since I found this blog, not feeling quite so alone in my own country.

    I think the whole situation with likeminded traditionalist conservatives of the opposite gender or even just a friend in the mass of socialism is comparable to ships in the ocean. It's hard to reveal who you are publicly to find the right ship alongside you in the sea which I find deplorable.

    Why is it okay for conservative traditionalists to hide who they are for fear of getting ridiculed and attacked- but fine for those who want to destroy our country's rich heritage and culture to express and force it are so freely open?

    The definition of hypocrisy really needs the term 'liberal socialist' within its word meaning in the dictionary.

    As a young woman, I can’t really be open around other twenty-four year olds, especially female, because I will get scorned and demeaned, and I have not got the world’s thickest skin when careerists and partying women take their claws out.

    I’ll defend what I believe in, but I can’t do it with stoicism, I’m too sensitive for my own good sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Good for you. I find it encouraging that there are people my age who are traditionalist conservatives. It's a comfort to know that there are still men my own young age like you.

    And I abstained from long paragraphs to respond to a simple sentence, which is good. I love to write and I can get carried away sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A., I'd encourage you to look for them in Church.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am not secular- but I have not been Christian since high school. I do not condone atheism, I find it nihilistic. I believe in a higher power, a natural order to life and society, our community and moral laws that we must adhere to and because of my past I hold a great reverence for Christian values. Part of what continues to dissuade me is that a church is no longer what it once was as a vaunted place for worship and community. A few churches are and I praise them for it.

    As a young teenager, I was into church, youth groups. My mother loved to have me dressed in pants so upon saving up my allowance I managed to buy these beautiful skirts. They went past my knees and were so feminine that I wore them and the few dresses I had constantly.

    My youthful rebellion was against my femininity being suppressed by others and written off as a social construct- and the most confusing, terrifying thing to be told as a young girl is that you are no different than a boy.
    It’s given me nightmares.

    One youth group had everyone running around for a game and I participated. I was told by the youth group leaders that I should wear trousers or shorts- and I was willing to give up getting to play the games so I could keep that special feeling. Then I was told it was trousers and shorts, or I couldn't go at all to the Christian youth group meetings.

    But it was more than at every turn male and female roles being inconsequential in a Christian setting as were the values. It was that the leaders and people in the Church were decidedly not Christian in the way I'd been taught that affected me.

    The values and higher faith in God than what those who would seek to destroy all religion for autonomy were meaningless and whenever I watch a religious leader, especially of the Christian denominations allow more ground to be ceded it hurts something inside of me.

    The so-called Christian church which my brother belongs to and attends emasculated him so much that he has disproportionate bursts of temper from his suppressed masculinity because it is no longer acceptable for a church to teach men to be men, and women to be women. Like I said I hold tremendous reverence for Churches and people who adhere to Christian tenets as a whole rather than as those individuals and institutions that are that only by name and lip service and to all the Christians that I’ve seen post on this site.

    ReplyDelete
  30. By the Christians on this site, that was included in greatly respecting them for staying strong to their God and their values- I reread it and was worried that last part could be misconstrued.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Then I was told it was trousers and shorts, or I couldn't go at all to the Christian youth group meetings.

    Incredible.

    whenever I watch a religious leader, especially of the Christian denominations allow more ground to be ceded it hurts something inside of me.

    I find it sad too. The churches are supposed to be the institutions upholding spiritual values, but too often they are drawn along by secular currents created on principles that are incompatible with Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  32. A., its important that men resist any "feminised" form of Christianity. Christianity by its nature does not inevitably have to appeal only to women or involve the emasculation of men.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.