Working women are too stretched

A female president would be significant. But the lives of working women everywhere also need reforming, writes Shelina Janmohamed

Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R) stops to take a selfie on the road on Iowa (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP)

With Hillary Clinton announcing her candidacy for the US presidency this week, America finally has the prospect of a female head of state. Regardless of your views on her politics, the symbolism of a woman in the Oval Office is potent. But just like the election of a black president didn’t erase racism, structural discrimination or the legacy of centuries of ingrained disadvantage, neither will Mrs Clinton’s candidacy eradicate similar challenges when it comes to women.

Women remain shackled by domestic burdens. Irrespective of their day-to-day struggles in the public sphere, whether those be through choice or necessity, the cooking, cleaning and childcare still remain their responsibilities. But this takes its toll on women because the maths are quite simple: when women increase their activities outside the home, they have less time and resource for activities within the home. If they maintain the same level of domestic responsibility their overall burden goes up. This is the most common scenario for women around the world. It has triggered a crisis of faith in the women’s movement, leading women to ask why they are now working outside the home as well as in it, and wondering if the dream of “having it all” has now turned into a nightmare.

When families have children, it is more often than not the woman who gives up her career, works part time, or is the first point of call for childcare. She’s also rushing to get home to cook, clean and manage the household. Their menfolk are free of this responsibility meaning they have more hours at work, concentrate better at work and are seen as better employees.

It doesn’t have to be like this. In fact, instituting greater male participation in the domestic space is beneficial for men, families and society as a whole, just as greater female participation has been in all these spheres. In fact, better sharing of household and family duties between men and women leads to better outcomes for all. Let’s be clear: I’m not advocating the end of families, or the status and role of mothers and fathers. Whatever works for your family, go for it. But if as a society we want to make space for women’s roles and voices in the public sphere, then this means more space for men’s roles and voices in the domestic sphere. And that is a good thing.

By way of example, in Sweden, shared parental leave was introduced in 1974. Thirty years on, findings from a study at Gothenburg University found men saying that the parental leave has resulted in “a closer relationship to their child” and has had “a positive effect on their partner’s possibilities for work or study”. And what is most surprising – and heartening for women who for too long have been fighting the idea that staying at home is the easy option – is that when men stayed at home to manage the house and childcare “it opened their eyes to how much time is actually needed to do daily housework”.

A female leader in the White House will be significant. But more balanced participation in houses everywhere will be the social change that affects the reality of women’s day to day lives.

Shelina Zahra Janmohamed is the author of Love in a Headscarf and blogs at www.spirit21.co.uk