The Women's Freedom Network Newsletter March/April, 2000, Vol. 7, Number 2. Women, Work and Family: Re-examining the theories of authors Joan Williams and Deborah Tannen by Claire Morgan

A t least since Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex in 1952, much feminist thinking has revolved around the critique of woman as "the other," signifying womens' subordinate and derivative status in relation to the so-called objective world of men. On this view "man is the measure of all things." He is rational, competitive, and spends much of his time in the public sphere, especially in the world of (paid) work. By contrast, women are emotional, caring, and privatized, devoting much of their energy to child rearing in the home. The latter is not only different; it is inferior.

Initially, liberal feminism tried to improve women's lot by persuading women to adopt the mores and standards associated with men at work. Women would prove that they too, could take on the demands of the world of work, and sought to emulate men's competitive thinking and aggressive behavior in the workplace. At last, they were (or appeared to be) equal.

Then came difference feminism and the ethic of care. According to this view, women are different, essentially and as a matter of social construction. Women's standards, values, and approaches to situations are different from men (they are caring, conciliatory, and compassionate) but just as valid. From the ethics of care perspective, care work in the home should be valued equally alongside market work in the office. Women could return to the home and not be ashamed; they were different but equal.

Today, with the rise of post-modernism, de Beauvoir's concept of "other" has been reinterpreted in terms of the "marked" category, denoting the existence of a group whose standards, values,and ways of approaching life in general--women (but also gays and minorities)-- are compared alongside those in the seemingly "objective," but unmarked category-- straight white men.

"From the ethics of care perspective, care work in the home should be valued equally alongside market work in the office. Women could return to the home and not be ashamed; they were different but equal."

On this view, man continues to be the measure of all things, but in subtler ways. Entire institutions are constructed on the basis of men's standards and men's ways of doing things, men's ways of seeing. This is not necessarily based upon a conscious of malicious conspiracy to keep women out of the workplace and in the home. Rather, many arrangements have developed according to the fact that historically men were the prime actors in the world of work outside the home. However, history is not static, and the world--or at least parts of it--has changed. Women have entered the world of paid work in large numbers, and in increasingly senior positions, but some institutions, including workplaces, do not reflect those changes in terms of their work schedules, pay differentials, and expectations. This matters because for most women the old dichotomy between work and home is practically irrelevant.

Most women now work at home and in the office, but large parts of the world ha e not changed to reflect this fact. Indeed, many of the old ways of doing things based upon gendered social constructions remain, and serve to make life for working women more difficult than it might otherwise be, and continue to be a good deal less accommodating to those (women and men) who cannot maintain the standard 9 to 5 (or, more properly these days, 8 to 7) work schedule because they are also carrying most of the burden of work at home. Conservatives and liberals (where liberals means individuals who value freedom and open-mindedness) may balk at some of the feminist critiques that have been leveled at women's world of work dismissing them as the arguments of radicals who don't understand freedom of choice or natural constraints. (One simply can't "have it all," and that's that.) But faced with the facts of many women's experience as employees and mothers (a recent article in the Washington Post described women's increasingly hectic schedule, and harried attempts to combine work and family life entailing a decline in the average workday for women--" 9 to 5 Gives Way to 24-7,") together with a desire that most of us share for a better world for all individuals, it seems to me that these critiques offer some arguments that are worth further consideration.

Two scholars who have spent a good deal of time examining and deconstructing women's experience at work are' linguist and Georgetown Professor Deborah Tannen, and the American University's School of Law Professor Joan Williams. Both employ the notion of marked categories to indicate how the world of work is gendered through modes of communication in speech and institutional arrangements respectively.

Tannen, author of the popular bestseller You Just Don't Understand, provides another accessible analysis of male-female relationships in Talking From 9 to 5. She stresses that at work gender is only one among many influences on conversational style, but evidently it is a very important one. Drawing on interviews with employees of both sexes, as well as her experiences sitting-in on meetings and shadowing employees at work, Tannen explains that she identified striking differences in the manner in which women and men communicate with others at work. In particular, she notes certain rituals associated with each sex. Men tend to approach others using banter, joking, teasing, and playful put-downs, as well as making effort to avoid what she calls one-down positions (accepting the inferior role when power plays are involved). By comparison, women try to maintain "an appearance of equality, taking into account the effect of the exchange on the other person, and expending effort to downplay the speakers' authority so that they can get the job done without flexing their muscles in an obvious way." (p.23) Since women enter a world of work largely established by and for men, in communicating differently from men they are at a disadvantage.

"Furthermore, adopting the patterns and uses of the other gender isn't necessarily the answer either."

Furthermore, adopting the patterns and uses of the other gender isn't necessarily the answer either. For instance, if a woman adopts a more authoritative and less conciliatory approach to her colleagues-especially, for instance, female assistants or secretaries-she is likely to be considered negatively. ("Bitch!") Even competent and self assured women may be labeled "bossy." (Recall the parodies of Margaret Thatcher with her handbag in the press.)

Tannen also notes that women are more apt than men to ask questions when they need more information, but this may be interpreted as a sign of incompetence or a lack of resolve and insecurity. Women often prefer indirect approaches to speech, making suggestions rather than telling others what to do. Some have a tendency to apologize excessively and unnecessarily in order to smooth things out. While these approaches may be helpful, considerate and diplomatic, from a more direct and hierarchical male perspective they may be interpreted as weak or inept. Obviously such perceptions can have a negative impact on job offers and advancement.

What does Tannen recommend? After a penetrating analysis her conclusion--we need more flexibility and mutual understanding--seems a tad wishy-washy. But this is unfair. She makes a strenuous effort to consider both sides and to present an even-handed judgement. These are complex issues and proper treatment of them demands thoughtful, not dogmatic recommendations. In practice the way that men and women tend to communicate at work does vary a good deal between individuals as well as genders and ages groups) and this may not be a bad thing if we are prepared to entertain different perspectives. Tannen is at pains to emphasize that she considers both male and female conversational styles to be equally valid and refuses to make a definitive judgement about which is superior (although she admits to favoring one over the other herself.) Her tone is one of curiosity rather than anger or even irritation.

By contrast, Joan Williams'Unbending Gender has a more radical agenda that carries with it a critical, but not a strident or polemical tone. For Williams, the point is not (only) to understand the world of differences, but to change them. Her analysis takes up where Tannen leaves off, continuing the deconstruction at a deeper, foundational level, using many scholarly studies and statistics to support her argument. Her thesis is captured in the following:

"Domesticity organizes our everyday tasks, our emotions, our politics. My goal is not to advocate sameness or androgyny, but to deconstruct domesticity and encourage the development of new ways of organizing work as well as family, emotional, and political life. The guiding principles are that society needs not only market work but also family work, and that adults who do family work should not be marginalized." (p.4)

Deconstruction of work that is centered around an ideal worker model--"a worker who works full time and overtime and takes no time off for childbearing or child rearing (p.1) (but frequently relies upon traditional domestic arrangements with a wife/care giver at home) according to Williams, reveals not only disadvantage for women, but full blown discrimination. Given the support of the market by traditional domestic arrangements women have two options: either they can perform as ideal workers without the domestic support typically enjoyed by men, or they can take dead-end mommy-track job's or women's work. Neither constitutes equality.

Both require change in the form of work restructuring. Apart from flexibility in work times and schedules, Williams recommends re-defining productivity in terms of output rather than face time at the office. Job sharing with part-time employees receiving proportional pay and benefits is another option open to companies, but the key is flexibility. This makes good economic sense. Firms need employees with skills, and to relegate mothers to the scrap heap simply because they are mothers, is a terrible economic waste. Some firms already practice these alternative management techniques. For those who do not, Williams would turn to the court and utilize the tools of the state under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to get the job done. This is where I, and probably many of the members of WFN, part ways with Williams, preferring voluntary, incremental changes to the use of political power. Still, her analysis, like Tannen's, provokes a good deal of thought about the world we have and the one we might have.

Since almost ninety percent of women become mothers at some point in their life, and most women work outside the home, many of the points Tannen and Williams raise need to be considered, whether as a matter of economic necessity and efficiency, individual self realization, or simple fairness.

References

---

Swoboda, Frank and Amy Joyce, "9 to 5 Gives Way to 24-7," Washington Post, 3.10.00, E l & E IO.

Tannen, Deborah. Talking from 9 to 5: How Women's and Men's Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work. (New York: William Morrow, 1994.)

Williams, Joan. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).