The Hardship of “Working families” or how fathers and mothers are in practice becoming more equal

Living or just surviving? That is the question…

Numerous feminists have deplored the challenge represented by combining full time employment with housework and raising kids. The famous argument goes as follows: financial liberation and proper fulfillment require women to have their own career. But full time work does not mean rest before and at the end of a hard working day. Women still have to assume a lot of chores and childcare, on top of their daily employment. This actually leads to taking on two jobs: for an employer and at home. For many feminists, the response is straightforward: the abolition of gender stereotypes will lead to gender equality, which will in turn liberate women.

This argument is generally too simplistic (1) but for our current topic the problem is the following: in more and more current households, men and women do share a lot of the childcare and domestic chores. This is often out of necessity rather than because of a disappearance of gender stereotypes. Unable to pay for a stay-at-home nanny or a cleaner, one parent often accomplishes chores when the other is still at work or busy dropping or picking up the kids. Therefore, the ‘working poor’ are reaching more gender equality in those everyday tasks. But this is mainly because their equally difficult material situation forces them to both bear the burden of domestic tasks. Even if gender biases persist, practices are evolving.

In other words: in many households, not only do fathers and mothers work full time but they also clean, tidy, wash up and look after their kids. Both fathers and mothers wake up at night to comfort and feed their babies, both play with their kids, feed them and dress them. Both of them clean, tidy, commute, drop their kids to school or expensive nurseries, then go to work, respond to demanding business targets and accomplish the tasks required by their positions. At the end of a tiring working day they then pick up their kids, come back home exhausted and still have to, again, clean, tidy, play with their tired kids, feed them and finally put them to bed… This is the average day of an average “working family”.

These working parents do not earn enough to live well, travel to comfortable holidays or buy expensive cars. They just work to pay the rent or mortgage, food, clothes and childcare. Maybe they will get indebted in order to enjoy one holiday a year in the sun or get a brand new car. Rather than properly living, they work to enrich the stakeholders of their companies and to pay other people to look after their children.

In theory, the solution seems simple: end austerity, invest in free or accessible childcare, increase wages, create career progressions, cap the cost of accommodation, build more affordable homes and reduce the working week. Among other things (2).

But what about the short to medium term? How can working families find a better balance within the existing unjust structures?

A potential solution is to focus on living rather than just surviving. This would require negotiating higher wages or homeworking whenever possible. When none of these avenues is possible because of a lack of bargaining power, then why not envisage a radical change of lifestyle?

Indeed, many parents decide to find a part-time job so that they can save on childcare and spend more time with their children and on their hobbies. The career progression might be less, the wage lower, the holidays and mortgage and credit card possibilities reduced…But this choice gives them the immediate satisfaction of using their time for more meaningful purposes. Cynically, this also reduces the amount of time they spend being exploited to increase the profit gained by a minority. Why not reduce this exploitation to only half or a third of the working week?

This will also allow those brave enough to take that leap to devote some of their creative energy to activities they truly value. Away from the draining, repetitive, and alienating tasks required by many jobs, they will be their own masters, at least a few hours per week. Finally yet importantly, they will get to spend beautiful and valuable moments with their little ones and actually see them grow.

Sophie Heine

Dr in Politics, author and consultant.

Latest book: “For a sovereign Europe”, Peter Lang : https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sovereign-Europe-Sophie-Heine/dp/1789974585/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=sophie+heine&qid=1583930953&s=books&sr=1-1

email: sophie.heine@yahoo.com

References

(1) For a crititicism and alternative to the mainstream approach to gender stereotypes see some of my other publications:

(2) For more on the progressive policy changes that need to be implemented to reach more individual freedom, see my books:

The fight against antisemitism: Avoiding a few common traps

Sophie Heine

In this brief article, I would like to outline a few reflections on how to make the fight against antisemetism more audible. Similarly, to many fights against injustices, this battle is a hard and painful one that can only be won if it is heard, supported and understood by the majority of the population. For that purpose, it might be useful to tackle a few limitations characterising the discourse of those who militate against the scourge of the hatred against the Jews.

Avoiding Dogmatism

First, it is necessary to avoid all dogmatism. Far from being a typical feature of antisemitic discourse, dogmatism can also imbue those who abhor it. This is for instance the case when militants imply, in a defensive way, that all criticism against Israel is necessarily antisemitic. Certainly, considering that Israel, as a state, needs to be eliminated because it would be inherently colonial, racist or evil, is antisemitic; particularly when it is asserted that this supposedly evil character is due to its Jewish nature. However, questioning some of the Israeli policies and institutions should not be labelled as necessarily antisemitic.

A similar dogmatic danger happens when certain categories, considered as more prone to antisemitism than others, are perceived as holistic communities deprived of internal divisions. Instead of endorsing unquestioned assumptions, it is essential to approach reality with a liberal, nuanced and critical mind. This means looking at the divisions characterising social groups, including so-called ‘communities’.

In order to avoid falling in any forms of dogmatism, some useful tools can be borrowed from academia: rigour, referencing, the comparison of contradictory sources, logical reasoning, a combination of deductive and inductive approaches, constantly testing subjective postulates and assumptions, highlighting one’s own subjective beliefs, admitting that they can influence our research and using the adequate methodological tools to protect ourselves against such biases1.

Positive message and Alliances

Secondly, it is indispensable to complement the fight against antisemitism with a constructive and propositional message. Indeed, only projects that combine a deconstruction of injustices and a set of alternatives are likely to convince broadly. Purely negative messages usually do not go very far. They need to be complemented by a positive discourse on what should be done to improve society. This is, in many ways, a much harder enterprise than a purely critical approach: in order to build an alternative message to antisemitism, one needs a project
about what a just society would look like. This inevitably leads to broader questions on equality, freedom, identity, democracy, sovereignty and so many more key concepts in the debate on justice.

Thirdly, elaborating an alternative discourse also means asking the question of alliances with other oppressed groups: does it make sense to focus exclusively on the fight against anti-Semitism or should one not also embrace struggles against all forms of discriminations? This means that militants against anti-Semitism should establish a more dynamic dialogue with those who denounce other forms of racism and gender domination, among other things. This could also help avoid some of the dogmatic traps mentioned above by contributing to more nuanced discourses. Building such alliances would be both strategically useful and normatively desirable.

Away from communitarian biases

Fourthly, it is vital to highlight how the irreducible diversity among Jewish people contradicts the communitarianism pervading this debate. In other words: not all Jews share the same ideological, axiological and normative beliefs; they do not share the same interests either.

Postulating that there is or should be a general unity within the Jewish community on
interests, norms, values, ideologies and identity comes down to falling into the communitarian trap often denounced in the adversaries’ discourse. Communitarianism indeed supposes that there is or should be a community of beliefs, interests, values and norms among those who allegedly share the same identity2.

It can go further and become political when it also assumes that political legitimacy has to rely on this common identity. Those who believe that Israel’s main legitimacy derives from a particular Jewish identity adopt this communitarian approach. Even when this identity is accepted as plural, open and democratic, supposing that it is the main ground for legitimate institutions is a sign of political communitarianism.

Of course, when a “community” has suffered from oppression or discrimination, this position is often understandable. It does not mean that this is the most effective way of reacting against potential new discriminations. Instead, it carries the risk of creating a mutually reinforcing dynamic of identity politics.

It would be much more fruitful to open up the debate to other important topics, related to values, interests, norms and beliefs; although the result might be surprising and the new alliances created unsettling, it might be worth trying. In that endeavour, one needs to stress the role played by selfish motives in mobilisations along more selfless drives3.

At the end of the day, communitarianism is harmful not only when racist people defend it. It can also be harmful when it imbues the discourse carried by victims. More precisely, it tends to create an “us versus them” opposition in which the “us” is valued over others and in which the ‘them’ or the ‘others’ are devalued. Yet, it is much easier to mistreat the members of a devalued community. This also tends to prevent internal criticism since the entire community is grasped as a coherent whole, erasing other relevant divisions. This can lead to various dangers and instrumentalisations – leaders justifying their policy in the name of the interest of the community or denying minorities or individuals certain rights and freedoms. Instead of an insistence on intrinsic links between identity and militancy or political legitimacy, it would be fruitful to embrace a clearly cosmopolitan approach4.

To sum up my argument: being against antisemitism is a noble cause but is not a project that everyone can easily relate to: and in order to be effective, it needs to persuade the majority. This requires getting rid of all forms of dogmatism and simplistic and unquestioned assumptions, complementing its critical part with a positive, alternative message, building alliances with other oppressed groups and overcoming all strands of communitarianism.

Notes
1 See the seminal definition of “axiological neutrality” given by Max Weber in Le savant et le politique, Ed
10×18, 201
2 For a more detailed discussion of the various forms of communitarianism and their dangers, see: Chapter 2
in Sophie Heine, For a sovereign Europe, Peter Lang, Oxford, 2019.
3 Sophie Heine, “Social Change in Progressive Thought: Analysis and Propositions», Journal of Political
Ideologies, Vol 7 (3), Oct 2012; Sophie Heine Pour un individualisme de gauche, J.C. Lattès, Paris, 2013.
4 For a more detailed discussion of this concept, see: Sophie Heine, “The dangers and Inanity of (Euro-)
Nationalism: From Communitarianism to Cosmopolitanism, Egmont Paper 77, 2015; and Heine, chapter 2,
For a sovereign Europe, op.cit.

This feeling of “lost and found”

How you can find yourself again in a foreign land…

As I was cycling in the streets of Oxford on a beautiful and sunny Sunday, admiring the magnificence of the colleges, a familiar feeling pervaded me: this feeling of “lost and found” that so often happens when you are not living in a familiar place.

As an immigrant in a foreign country, you often have this utterly disagreeable impression that you are lost and have lost your friends, family and familiar references. Of course this impression is heightened by certain particular circumstances – This would be a euphemism to say that the current United Kingdom is not particularly welcoming to foreigners.

When you have to abide by incomprehensible rules and expectations and when you do not understand why people laugh at ridiculous jokes, you feel lost. When you feel crushed by absurd and alien governmental regulations, you feel lost. When you eat a stuffed turkey, chutney or the greasy ‘fish and chips’ or when a sales assistant gives you a ‘thank you, love’ just because you have paid for your items, you feel lost.

When your heart is gloomy, but you are unable to connect to your friends “back home” , when you are overwhelmed by joy but have no meaningful contacts to share it with, you feel lost; when you hear about the happy and sad moments of your remote friends and relatives but cannot jump on a eurostar to talk to them or hug them, you feel so lost.

Does falling in love make the strangeness of the foreign land subside? Love does make us happy, a lot of the time. But it can also increase alienation when it occurs on unfamiliar grounds. It sometimes lead to oblivion of the self rather than to self-recognition. Love is a complex place, where we do not only discover who we are but where we can also get lost. In passionate love, in particular, the risk is to lose ourselves and to even just lose, full stop. This, of course, specifically applies to women, whose tendency to satisfy their ego and identity often disappears behind the tendency to satisfy the needs of others.

But, somehow, that feeling of finding yourself will happen again – all the more mesmerizing that it usually appears after the opposite sensation: someone says or does just the right thing at the right time or you engage in your favourite activities and that inner feeling of self-recognition arises. Of course, some of the people you would like to share your joy with are not present or reachable, but still: you have found yourself again.

This is the moment you realise that “home” is more a feeling than a territory: it is not about clinging to new friends, a new family or a new job, but about learning to always find yourself again after feeling lost. This might require exceptional strength of character. Yet, who but exceptional beings decide to relinquish the safe comfort of their first homes to live in a foreign country?

So, even in the country of the Brexit, let us embrace, now and again, that unique feeling of “lost and found”. And let us keep the hope that, one day, we will settle in a home that not only makes us feel safe but that also brings us that powerful feeling that we have found who we are and who we want to be.

Sophie Heine
Dr in Politics, Author and consultant
Latest Book: “For a sovereign Europe”, Peter Lang, Oxford, 2019 (https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/9781789974584?gC=5a105e8b&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhKDBvtSX5wIVS7TtCh3mpgRYEAQYASABEgIFhPD_BwE)

Jamais deux sans trois…De l’injustice du marche du travail britannique


Si j’en avais le temps, je m’embarquerais dans l’ecriture d’un nouveau roman intitulé “Voyage au bout du marché du travail britannique”. Blague à part: je suis en état de choc. En pur etat de choc. Voila que j’ai été temoin de trois licenciement en a peine quelques mois: celui d’une equipe entière, pour une multinationale qui ne merite pas sa reputation; le mien, pour une entreprise dont je tairai ici le nom; et celui d’un collègue directe et performant pour une agence dont je ne dévoilerai pas non plus le nom.

Le premier m’a tellement choquée que j’ai moi-même demissionné apres quelques mois. Quasiment toute l’equipe dans laquelle on m’engageait se faisait licenciée! Même les managers qui m’avaient interviewée n’etaient plus présent lors de mon premier jour. Ambiance amère et délétère qui m’a poussée a partir.
Le second licenciement dont j’ai ete temoin m’affectait directement. Mais quand je me suis fait congédiée apres un mois d’un poste qui n’utilisait aucune de mes competences, me demandait de me tordre en huit pour parvenir a comprendre les demandes impossibles d’une hierarchie etroite et bornée et supposait quatre heures de trajet par jour, je me suis sentie a la fois mal traitée et soulagée. Mal traitée parce que la dame des ressources humaines m’a annoncé avec un grand sourir, que le patron avait realisé que, finalement, le poste créé pour moi n’etait pas tres utile mais que cela n’avait rien à voir avec le fait que je faisais du bon travail. Soulagée parce que le boulot me déplaisait profondément. Toutefois, o joies du marché du travail britannique, je n’avais pas encore séché mes larmes de colère et d’humiliation que mon gsm vibrait deja des nombreux appels des agences prêtes à m’offrir d’autres postes.


Le troisieme licenciement dont je viens d’etre temoin est d’un tout autre ordre: son injustice est aussi flagrante que son imprévisibilité. L’équipe que j’ai rejoint pour une boite jeune et dynamique semblait soudée et assez saine. Apres ce licenciement surprise d’un de leurs talents les plus performants, je crains que la solidarité ne fasse place à la peur et a la méfiance mutuelle. La personne concernée etait performante sur tous les KPI – pour les non-Anglophones, les KPI ce sont ces ‘Key Performance indicators’ qui rendent la vie des salariés au Royaume Uni terriblement stressante – mais le ‘client’ payant pour le projet estime que ce poste n’est plus une priorité. Trois ans durant, le bon et loyal employé a respecté les regles, faisait toutes ses heures et plus et obtenait des scores magnifiques sur les graphes reprenant tous les indicateurs de performance.


Mais la nouvelle est tombée comme un couperet inattendu. Apres avoir contribué a construire le projet qui l’a nourri pendant trois ans – et a aussi permis de payer d’autres employés, supérieurs et même, des actionnaires – on lui dit qu’il n’est plus utile a la compagnie. Après ces années de bons et loyauxs services, il aura moins de deux mois de preavis. Il n’y a pas de syndicat auquel il puisse faire appel; pas de protection du travailleur autre qu’une minuscule periode de repit. Pire encore: sa residence britannique dépend de son travail. Autrement dit: en perdant son emploi, il perdra aussi, tres probablement, son visa.


Espérons que, pour lui aussi, le téléphone vibrera et que les agences de recrutement lui proposeront moult emplois alléchants. Bien entendu, il a un beau pays dans lequel retourner et une famille chaleureuse qui l’y accueillera a bras ouverts. Mais lui voulait et veut etre en Angleterre. Parce que ce pays, envers et contre tour, continue a faire rêver… Le fait qu’il appartienne a l’un des groupes subissant le plus de xenophobie en Angleterre est-t-il un facteur expliquant sa situation? Il est difficile de ne pas le supputer. Mais le client, l’entreprise et lui-même pretendront que ce facteur n’a nullement joué. Seuls comptent les exigences des patrons et des actionnaires…Un argument sans doute moins honteux en terre capitaliste.


Moi qui suis une Européenne convaincue et immigrée ici sans grande envie et pour des raisons personnelles, je me demande bien ce qui peut encore faire rêver dans cette véritable jungle inhumaine et aux droits sociaux inexistants…


Sonne, téléphone, sonne…

Sophie Heine, Dr in Politics

Last book: For a sovereign Europe, Peter Lang, Oxford, 2019,

https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/For-a-Sovereign-Europe-by-Sophie-Heine-author/9781789974584

Is working full-time with young kids the new Oppression?

Sophie Heine (Dr in Politics, Author. Latest book: For a sovereign Europe, Peter Lang, 2019)

I was extremely lucky to spend the first year of my second baby almost full time with her: to see her grow, every day, to give her affection, provide for her, feed her, nurture her… It seemed like a particularly long period of time since, coming from the continent, I am used to the short leaves after giving birth.

But recently, I have done the great move of ‘going back to work’ as they say in the UK…As a progressive intellectual, I have of course been influenced by all the feminist views on this topic: to be better treated in society and maybe even aspire to become men’s equals, women have to fully embrace their working lives. Jobs are the path to recognition outside the domestic sphere as well as the most secure way to reach economic security.

Precisely because I know about what work is supposed to bring to female emancipation, it is even more daunting to realise that, instead of welcoming this situation, I actually resent it. Instead of self-fulfillment, I feel only internal emptiness; instead of security, emotional shakiness; instead of energy, depressing apathy…

Of course I see my kids in the evening : I hold them, kiss them, feed them and play with them. And I know that they enjoy having other carers – their dad, their child-minders and the school staff. But none of this sensible reasoning can go against the huge, enormous, painful hollowness I feel inside while I am sat in front of a computer the whole day. After dropping them to nursery and school and on my way to a very interesting job, the only thought occupying my mind is that I should have stayed longer with them.

When I heard that the former company I was working for was organizing a ‘team-playing retreat’ abroad for four days, my first thought was not: ‘wow, great, a free trip to a beautiful destination!’; it was a desperate ‘ how am I going to deal with even more separation from my kids’? But, of course, I could never express such a fear out loud. No-one is supposed to feel sad and empty at the idea of leaving their kids to work for other, very remote, people. Not only are we supposed to be productive, but we are also meant to not complain about the personal sacrifice industrial life demands from us.

Some will purport that when your job is neither alienating nor boring, the sacrifice of not seeing your kids much is worth it. It might be true. At the beginning. But isn’t it equally true that, after the first exciting weeks or months, the same feeling of anxious emptiness risks overhauling us again? I have to admit that this feeling was much less gripping before I became a mother. It is bad enough to waste your time for the benefits of others – because let’s face it: most jobs use our skills, time and energy to enrich a minority – but when we do so at the expense of the precious time spent with our kids, this is a much more difficult sacrifice.

To all working mothers who suffer in silence and put on a brave face every day going to work, pretending they are perfectly fine to leave their kids so that they can ‘use their brains’ , ‘socialize with other adults’, ‘continue learning and developing their skills’, here is a little advice: stop hiding your contradictions and feelings. Just dare to say it out loud: a huge part of us just just wants to spend hours and hours with our kids and work so much less. And to all the fathers who feel exactly the same: please stop being silent and just say so….Absolutely no job on earth is worth tearing us apart from our kids and families.

Sophie Heine

Dr in Politics

New book: “For a sovereign Europe”, Peter Lang, Oxford.

Contact : sophie.heine@yahoo.com

Introduce Yourself (Example Post)

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

  • Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
  • Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

  • Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
  • What topics do you think you’ll write about?
  • Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
  • If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started