From A. H. TURNER
In ‘Making equality work for women’, Susan McRae points out that arrangements
for those returning to work are still not flexible enough ‘to meet the needs
of women’ (Talking Point, 25 May). But women do not need flexibility for
themselves. They need it to cope with the family responsibilities that our
society at present expects them to undertake with derisory backup. The phrase
‘to meet the needs of women’ manages to make women returners seem selfish,
and so lets employers off the hook.
Employers already extend tacit flexibility to male employees – this
covers the countless working hours lost due to drink-related problems and
to injuries sustained by men at play (‘sports injuries’). The NHS shares
these costs too, and it would be hard to show that either the employer or
the nation gets any benefits in return for absorbing ‘the needs of men’.
For women returners, flexibility at work means putting in the hours for
the pay and taking on the gruelling logistics of the double shift too. In
return, employer and nation get a splendid bargain – the next generation
of employees are raised at minimum bother and expense. Is this ‘making equality
work for women’?
Now if the extensive networking, sponsorships, donations, facilities,
land, hardware and public time and attention lavished on men’s sporting
events could be mirrored in the service of child-care and facilities for
under-16s, we would have a support system worthy of young Brits whether
their parents were in work or not. Then equality for women (and children)
might be on the way.
A. H. Turner West Yorkshire
Advertisement
