Models of the Family in Modern Societies: Ideals and Realities

Citation

McPherson, M. (2005), "Models of the Family in Modern Societies: Ideals and Realities", Women in Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 524-527. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420510624756

Much has been written about the reasons for the low representation of women at senior management level. Most revolve around the “glass ceiling” and other structural barriers, within both the workplace and society, relating to women's dual role in society as paid workers while still taking the primary responsibility for unpaid domestic work such as childcare and household tasks. Others look to traditional gender roles within society and relationships. For example, in the traditional male breadwinner family model men participate in paid work as their contribution to the family/household, i.e. financial support. Women's role is to support men in that role by taking responsibility for childcare, eldercare, the running of the household, and the emotional support of the male breadwinner. When women step outside their traditional role to participate in paid work, they do not, in general, receive the same level of emotional and domestic support from their male partner as men receive from female partners. This affects their ability to sustain demanding paid work roles, which are designed, for male workers with unpaid female support in the home.

Hakim introduces a different perspective to the debate: preference theory. She argues that part of the reason for women's under representation in the full‐time labour force and in career oriented positions, is that more women than men prefer their family role to their paid work role. For these women, paid employment is a secondary role.

Catherine Hakim has previously published a series of books in the area of women and work, which laid the groundwork for Models of the Family in Modern Societies: Ideals and Realities. This book uses data from two comparative nationally representative surveys of men and women, one in Britain and one in Spain, to look at gender differences in the way models of the family and family roles, work orientations, patriarchal values and lifestyle preferences impact on marital status, childbearing and employment patterns.

The book is academic in style, integrating theory and research. Although it presents a great deal of numerical data in tables this is being limited to the presentation and discussion of percentages and does not involve multivariate statistical analysis.

Following an introduction to the concept of lifestyle choices, the two surveys that form the data basis for the book, and an outline of the book, the book provides more detailed information on the two surveys and the operationalization of preference theory; that is, how lifestyle preference can be researched and measured at both the personal (micro) and public (macro) levels.

Using data from the two surveys, the next two chapters discuss the relationship of ideology and work orientation, first patriarchy and the ideal family model, and then sex‐role ideology. Various correlates of sex‐role ideology and work orientation are investigated, such as education, social class and income, ageing, marriage and divorce, and regional variations.

Chapters 5 and 6 look at ideological influences on employment and occupational choice. These are followed by chapters on other influences on lifestyle preferences, such as political and religious beliefs and practices, and the influence of lifestyle preference on housing.

The conclusion identifies lifestyle preference groups, discusses both micro‐level and macro‐level perspectives, sums up the findings of the two surveys from Britain and Spain and draws conclusions about preference theory and employment and the implications for the future of work.

These conclusions and implications are that there is no difference in the attitudes and values of men and women and that legislation to enhance conditions of part‐time workers and rights of parents of young children to part‐time work all lead to a closing of the gender gaps in employment. Hakim posits that, in future, the main differences between workers will be between primary and secondary earners, and between lifestyle preference groups. She believes that lifestyle preference will be the prime determinant of occupational choice and job histories.

I agree with Hakim that neither women nor men are homogenous groups in terms of their aspirations and preferences regarding employment and family life, and that lifestyle preference is a factor in labour market decisions that has often been ignored in previous analyses, but I disagree that it is the main determinant of employment choices. While Hakim acknowledges that individual choices are constrained by social structures and norms, she argues that these are secondary factors. For instance, she claims that the choice of who will be the primary or secondary earner is primarily a lifestyle preference choice rather than an economically rational choice, with the primary earner being the higher earner. Despite Hakim's claims of the closing of gender gaps in employment, a gender pay gap still exists in the UK and other western countries, for a variety of reasons including occupational preference and gender discrimination, which makes it logical for men to be the primary earner for a couple that prefers one partner to be a full‐time homemaker and childcarer.

There is also the question of how much lifestyle preference is determined by the constraints of what is currently or has in the past been available? If workplace cultures based on the needs of full‐time male single breadwinners, cultures of long hours and uninterrupted full‐time service, and a lack of quality affordable childcare, are all that is available or known, then some women may not prefer a career in the labour force. But if the workplace culture and societal supports accommodated their reality of simultaneously raising a family without a full‐time homemaker supporting them, then perhaps their preferences would change. This can be seen, for example, in the numbers of women lawyers who reject a lifestyle of corporate partnership, but replace it with smaller women‐only firms that offer the flexibility they need to have both a career and a family.

For Hakim, while paid work and family may be compatible for women, a career and family are not. (But they are compatible for men, although she claims gender differences in employment are almost extinguished). Hakim equates career with full‐time work, but a preference for part‐time work combined with raising a family does not necessarily mean a preference for family over career. Other research has shown that part‐time work and careers in senior management are not incompatible options, and that the availability of part‐time work at senior levels has been essential to many women in achieving senior career positions.

Hakim also claims equal opportunities legislation mean women now have equal access to all positions and occupations and careers in the labour market. But, as long as jobs and the workplace are designed for the male single breadwinner with a full‐time wife taking care of the children and running the household, this is only true of women who are able to work like men.

Preference theory is in fact dependent on those women who prefer to be full‐time homemakers entering and sustaining a marriage and, further, that the husband's income is sufficient to provide for the family at the level congruent with her lifestyle preference. The reality is that for many, if not most, women, that is not going to be the case. Marital status is transitional, and a preference for work‐family balance when in a couple with a male primary earner is likely to change as that status changes. A forward thinking woman will be aware of this and the need to balance lifestyle choice with economic insurance. Hakim argues that the association between high divorce and high preference for egalitarian versus gender division of labour within the family means that women in traditional roles have happier marriages. This claim makes unfounded assumptions about the direction of causality, ignoring the fact that those who have been divorced are more likely to have become aware of the need for egalitarian roles for women. It also ignores the fact that preferences may change over time due to changing circumstances. Hakim herself acknowledges that economic circumstances do in some cases override preference theory – what she terms her “contrary group” those for whom her theory does not apply. In fact, 41 per cent of her “full‐time homemaker preferrers” in the UK were actually in full‐time work

The comparative findings in this study show that Spanish women have a higher preference for labour force participation than their British counterparts, but a lower actual participation rate. The incongruence between attitudes and behaviour found in both the Spanish and British studies suggest that individual preference is not the main determinant of women's participation in the labour force. The availability of social structures to support women in combining paid and unpaid work are likely to play a larger part than Hakim suggests. There are many examples to be found within the book to support this. In Chapter 6 she says that women who want to combine paid work and family gravitate to female dominated occupations because they allow part‐time work and time out of labour force. That is not preference; it is making do with what is available. Similarly, in Chapter 9, she states that Spain has low rates of part‐time work because it is not available, so those women who work do so full‐time, and a high proportion do not work at all.

A comparison of this book with the other I reviewed at the same time, by Pfau‐Effinger, which compared three European countries and tested a different theoretical explanation for differences in women's employment patterns, shows that there are wider determinants of gender employment patterns than individual preference. Of the two, I found Pfau‐Effinger's thesis more valid and substantiated by the evidence presented. The fit between theory and evidence, and evidence and conclusions, is not as tight as in Hakim's book. In fact, some of the cross‐national differences between Britain and Spain found by Hakim could benefit from the application of Pfau‐Effinger's theory of the role of cultural differences and of the need for social institutions based on a single male breadwinner model of the family to catch up with new egalitarian and dual breadwinner models.

Hakim argues that women's employment is primarily a matter of individual choice combined with legislation against direct discrimination, but she continually needs to explain away discrepancies in her argument, including the need for statistical analysis. While lack of perfect fit between evidence and theory does not negate the contribution her work makes to the complex and on‐going debate around gender differences in labour force participation, her conclusions overemphasise the contribution of preference theory. This book would benefit from clearer modelling of the interrelationships between the multi‐layered main determinants. This would also provide a basis for further research to be undertaken which includes some multivariate analysis to explain the amount of the variance accounted for by preference theory compared with other competing and valid explanations.