Women and Work. The Age of Post‐Feminism?

Citation

Sayers, J. (2001), "Women and Work. The Age of Post‐Feminism?", Women in Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 193-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/wimr.2001.16.4.193.1

This book is an edited collection of works examining a wide range of work experiences of women, mainly in the UK, Spain and France. These countries are all members of the European Union (EU), and so comparing policy experiences between these three countries is quite illuminating. The book is the result of a conference on “Women and equality: rhetoric and reality” held at Liverpool John Moores University in July 1996. The theme, according to the editors, was actually not post‐feminism and so the contributors at the conference were not required to write in this “framework”. Consequently there is confusion between the title and the actual content of the contributions. In their final statement the editors indicate that the contributions of the book confirm that “we have yet to reach a state of ‘post‐feminism’, a concept presumably intended by its proponents to indicate achievement of nirvana in terms of equality” (p. 12). I found this statement quite confusing – I hadn’t thought nirvana was the unified project of “post‐feminists” – and think that some definitional work about what was actually meant by this perspective would have helped, especially as “post‐feminism” was a title word. Setting this initial misgiving aside, of which I believe potential buyers should be aware, there is much to commend this book to readers.

The issue of providing a coherent framework in a book of edited chapters was helped by the focus on only a few countries. By the end of the book, most people will have a much better understanding of the political and economic systems of the EU, Spain, France and the UK, and the shared issues for women in those countries. A variety of issues and types of work are examined, including home‐work, training experiences in insurance, the fire service, low pay, lesbian work and family experience, and hostessing and prostitution. The editors attempt to overcome the challenge of scope by providing useful introductory and concluding chapters. As I have already mentioned, I found it hard to equate the title of the book with the editors’ choice of topics and perspectives. But at the same time I found the lucid rendition of structural economic discrimination and gendered structuring of discriminatory practice a timely (for me) reminder of the limits of post‐structuralism and a help in illuminating women’s workplace dilemmas.

Generally speaking, I found the writing of each of the women contributors most accessible. The language is suitable for university students, and personally I can see myself using several chapters as useful illustrations of how women can be excluded from particular occupations (the fire service in particular) and the limits of policy in redressing structural inequalities in labour markets. The limits of political and economic policies in helping women are a theme in the first four chapters of the book, which also mainly provide insights from comparisons between the EU countries of the UK, France and Spain. But the “bleak” conclusions from this research of policy experiences in these countries formed a somewhat gruesome read in the introductory chapters, and indicated perhaps why many feminist scholars are trying to find alternative ways of finding solutions through post‐feminism and post‐structuralist perspectives.

Joanne Cook’s chapter on citizenship and flexible home‐workers’ and part‐time workers’ access to social rights in the UK argues that “gendered citizenship” provides a useful framework for evaluating flexible employment and uncovering its negative implications. The focus is on uncovering gaps between formal European Union rights and rights as they exist in the UK. Noting the unregulated nature of flexible work, and the difficulties flexible workers have in accessing employment rights (a similar situation exists here in New Zealand), the author queries the desirability of embracing flexible employment growth. The relative absence of trade unions and the lack of involvement of flexible workers in developing appropriate policies are two very important points. As the author herself notes, the picture painted in her article is bleak for home‐workers and flexible workers, but dependent on the mobilisation of trade unions, lobby groups and individuals to effect political change.

In their chapter “Equal opportunities at work in France and Spain: theory and reality”, Hilary Rollin and Jean Burrell provide a comparative description of the features of women’s employment in Spain and France. The two countries have some structural similarities, in terms of the intent of policy and structural gendered inequalities, but quite different political systems. Again, the tenor of the article is quite bleak, concluding that “women in France and Spain today suffer from greater insecurity and marginalisation than two decades ago” (p. 51). They express their worry that the integration of sex equality considerations into all policy making (that is, not talking about women’s part‐time work, but part‐time work more generally) and the very real consideration that “When we used categories, we could see where women were. When we generalise, they disappear” (p. 52).

I found Andrea Lee’s chapter on the Northshire fire service more to my personal liking in terms of its examination of language discourses. The chapter gives a lively account of the ways in which women, predominantly through language, but also organisational practices, remain marginalised in the traditional fire service. Although I don’t believe that many women academics will be surprised at the findings regarding exclusionary discourses, the chapter is well written and would provide a really useful reading for tertiary courses on women and work. Although, again, the conclusions are bleak for women’s inclusion in the fire service in the long term, the chapter would make a good springboard for a discussion on other ways in which women have found spaces in the fire prevention and fighting “industry” to occupy in spite of the difficulties. Perhaps juxtaposing the reading with a 2001 edition of pin‐up calendar fire‐fighters without their shirts and posed with their fire hats held in strategic positions (a yearly event now in New Zealand)? This could lead to an interesting discussion of the sexualisation of the fire‐fighter and how this affects the occupational status and masculinities of the occupation. In New Zealand the fire service has been under constant review and the traditional fire service is merely a shadow of what it once was. The whole focus has moved away from fire‐fighting to fire prevention. Women have found opportunities through this restructuring, but not in the expected places, appearing more observable in the prevention and education function. I am convinced that Andrea Lee’s summing‐up of the situation and exclusionary discourses is quite correct, but also that it is only part of the picture. The “post‐structuralist” propensity to play ironically with images and engage in a political project of subterfuge and guerrilla raids on the images of masculinities and femininities at least provides an optional arsenal for feminist researchers.

The chapter by Linda Walsh and Liz James seems to me to get the right sort of balance. The title itself “Women choose low pay”, bannered like a news headline, ironically undermines rational choice theory. The contention is, of course, that low pay is a result of choices by women who prefer part‐time jobs requiring little human capital because of their commitment to their domestic role. Of course, these so‐called “choices” take place within a system of structures of constraint – “women make choices, but not under conditions of their own choosing”. Walsh and James acknowledge the complexities of the problem here and, influenced by psychoanalytical, postmodern and post‐structuralist positions, they point out that by deconstructing notions of the selfish “rational man” the weaknesses and absurdity of the concept are uncovered. They point out that an adequate framework for understanding the choices which (differentiated) women make needs to include attention to the ways in which identities of women are constructed. This means that economic policy directions also need to be less monolithic and more responsive. I liked this chapter because it showed how subverting “meaning”, in this case the idea of rational choice theory, throws up alternative meanings.

Two further chapters provided alternative ways of seeing that are most illuminating. Gillian Dunne’s chapter on lesbian work and family experience points out that crucial insights into complex processes which impede or support equality can often be gained by examining the alternative voices. Those who live outside the system can often see it the most clearly. Chapter 8, by Lesley Twomey, examines the novel by Rosa Montero, Amado Amo, and draws conclusions about work experience through the 1970s and 1980s in Spain, as seen through the eyes of the author and characters in her novel. I am not familiar with the novel, but my view is that this chapter provides a positive example of the power of literary criticism to help people understand and creatively engage with the forces of domination surrounding them. Twomey calls the novel a study of subversion, a healthy undertaking.

Nicola Piper writes the only chapter on a non‐European country – and the focus is on female labour migration to Japan. But her themes and the issues that she explores are universal. She particularly focuses on the situation of Thai and Filipino women in the Japanese sex and entertainment industry. The situation of these women is dire, and her chapter usefully explains the situation of many women on the underside of the global economy. This chapter also provides an explanation of interconnecting race and gender discourses.

In short, I found the book an informative read, and my knowledge of the EU and the limits of policy has been greatly increased. Each person reacts to a collection such as this differently, and my interest in reading this review, as it is with most books, is how can I use this collection in my teaching and research? I will certainly find this book useful in my teaching, as I have explained, and the book adds to a growing literature that considers our experiences of equity policies and workplace experience in the latter part of the last century. I just wish it didn’t all sound so bleak, because I am sure that most women do find the odd pleasure in working and even consider themselves occasionally successful. Perhaps that is the job of another, different volume of stories about women and work.

In conclusion, I would just like to question, again, the use of the term “post‐feminism” in the title. I presume that this inclusion was in order to market the book to a wider audience, but I question its relevance to the actual contents of the book, and potential buyers should be forewarned of this. The editors appear to be quite critical of “post‐feminism”, as I have already mentioned. I have no issue with the challenge of any perspective but, considering the title of the book, I would have liked to see a deeper understanding of the many positions of feminist scholars who may use post‐structuralist insights in their work represented here. There is no “single” project of “post‐feminists”, most of whom would struggle with the term “post‐feminist” anyway. Many of them still grapple with, play with, and use Marxist and other “essentialist” positions creatively in their “unified” project to politically trouble and engage with the very structural inequalities this book is all about. Nobody is looking for nirvana here anymore. I believe we are all just looking for the cracks and spaces, through which we can lever our understandings and create more light than dark. I was hoping that the book would show how post‐structuralist positions may illuminate debate and the lack of progress towards redressing structural inequalities.

Overall, I recommend this book, in spite of my forewarning about post‐feminism in the title somewhat misrepresenting the content. There is a lot of useful information here, along with a variety of interesting approaches and new insights into different work environments and their ability to empower or constrain women.