Parental Leave - Gender Differences In Consequences

Parental Leave - Differences In Consequences

There were two studies released this past June (2013) in the Journal of Social Issues that cover aspects of "flexibility stigma," which is to say, stigma attached to taking family leave.

1. Fathers and the flexibility stigma

Some excerpts from the first study [1]:

Expectations for the ideal worker typically assume minimal interference from child care or other family obligations. The ideal worker is supposed to work long hours without interruption and to keep family matters from intruding on one's commitment to the job (Williams, 2001). Historically the ideal worker norm was also linked to the organization of production which helped pattern gender relations and shaped cultural conceptions of the ideal man and woman (Mintz & Kellog, 1988). Women were assumed to be focused on and committed to caring for children, family and home, whereas men were assumed to be directed toward paid work and civic engagement, fulfilling their family obligations by serving as good providers (Bernard, 1981; Coltrane, 1996; Moen & Roehling, 2004). Undergirded by this cultural ideal of separate spheres for men and women, workplaces have been organized in highly gendered ways and have remained surprisingly impervious to change (Acker, 1990; Glass, 2004; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Williams, Blair-Loy, & Berdahl, 2013).

At the same time, cultural conceptions of appropriate gender roles and behavior have changed dramatically in the last half-century, and women's labor force participation patterns have undergone huge transformations (Coltrane & Adams, 2008; Moen & Roehling, 2004). Most women now remain employed after they have children and labor force participation rates for mothers have increased faster than for others, with over two thirds of American women with school-aged children employed full-time. Changes in men's domestic behaviors have been slower, but even here we have seen some profound shifts in the ways that housework and child care are divided in contemporary families with American men doubling the time they spend on housework and child care between 1965 and 2003 (Bianchi, Robinson, & Milkie, 2006; Coltrane, 2000; Sullivan, 2006).

It is fairly well-known that women suffer wage and career penalties for taking a leave of absence (usually for family reasons) - the degree to which this occurs is up for debate, but Coltrane et al cite a study suggesting that it is 5% per child.

Anyhow, they go on to ask about implications of changes in gendered patterns of work and family commitment:

An optimistic prediction would see the earnings and work patterns of American men and women becoming more similar, whereas a more pessimistic prediction would assume that patterns of gender discrimination and wage inequalities would persist despite modest behavioral change at workplaces and in homes.

Slightly off-topic:

Not surprisingly, we find that both men and women with more education earn more. For men the positive effects of educational attainment are most evident at the highest levels, attending college or obtaining a college degree, whereas for women, high school graduation also has beneficial effects on earning.

findings often appear gender neutral; the magnitude of effects is similar for men and women. Only for education among these human capital variables do we find pronounced gender effects, with the return stronger at lower levels of education for women than for men (Diprete & Buchmann, 2006; Glenn & Taylor, 1984).

Being divorced is associated with significantly lower earnings for men (especially Whites and Hispanics), but higher earnings for White women.

Previous studies typically examined how earnings were related to simple parental status—either motherhood and lower earnings (the motherhood penalty), or fatherhood and higher earnings (the fatherhood premium). In contrast, we measure the presence of children living in the home to determine parental status. Net of various controls, we find a positive relationship between residential children and higher earnings for men and Black or Hispanic women. These findings may reflect genuine increases in labor productivity among parents as children increase the financial needs of the household or may be the result of selection effects, with higher earning individuals more likely to become parents, or to become parents at a later age.

They refer to the marriage premium, but (happily?) sidestep any explanation:

Being married in our findings is associated with statistically significant higher earnings for men but not for women. In our longitudinal findings using several decades and multiple controls, the “marriage premium,” though sometimes enjoyed by both men and women, is significantly stronger for men of all racial/ethnic groups. Marriage is still a better economic deal for men than for women.

As for the consequences of men's family-related work adjustments:

These analyses show convincingly that men who opt for a “daddy track,” by choosing flexible work trajectories suffer lower long-term earnings, just as women who opt for a “mommy track” suffer an eventual earnings penalty. Thus, our findings suggest that the flexibility stigma is relatively gender neutral.

They go on to mention another factor:

Our results suggest that men who are unemployed or quit work for family reasons do indeed suffer an earnings penalty. Although some recent theories suggest that men on a “daddy track” suffer even greater negative consequences than women because of the violation of normative gender prescriptions for seeming to forgo primary breadwinning, our results challenge this prediction, at least for some types of flexible work strategies, and for outcomes like earnings.

The reference to "normative gender prescriptions" is important, and is dealt with a similar study below.

2. Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma?

Much in keeping with first study, but more focused on gender. The introduction to the second study [2]:

However, because the concept of work–life balance is strongly gendered, men who request a family leave may also suffer a femininity stigma, whereby “acting like a woman” deprives them of masculine agency (e.g., competence and assertiveness) and impugns them with negative feminine qualities (e.g., weakness and uncertainty). For example, men who behaved modestly during a job interview encountered more prejudice than a comparable woman, an effect that was fully accounted for by perceptions of weakness (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). Moreover, men who championed women's causes (i.e., male feminists) were viewed as higher in femininity and lower in masculinity than either a male biologist or a benevolent sexist (Glick & Fiske, 1996), suggesting that defending women's rights can weaken men's gender identity in the eyes of observers (Rudman, Mescher, & Moss-Racusin, in press). In addition, men who succeed in female domains are at risk for penalties that range from being perceived as a “wimp” and robbed of respect (Heilman & Wallen, 2010) to being sabotaged by their peers (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). Precarious manhood theory would also suggest that men who “act like women” by requesting family leave are at risk for feminization (Vandello et al., 2008). According to this theory, manhood is not assured by biological changes that occur during puberty but instead, must be won and continuously sustained by men's behavior. As a result, men who request a family leave may be penalized by perceptions that they are not “real men.”

Replicating past research, men who requested a family leave were viewed as poor workers (Butler & Skattebo, 2004; Wayne & Codeiro, 2003) and ineligible for rewards (Allen & Russell, 1999). Uniquely, we also found that male leave requesters suffered femininity stigma, such that perceivers judged them as weaker and more communal, but also as less agentic and dominant, compared with control targets. Indeed, male leave requesters were viewed as relatively more weak than dominant, and more communal than agentic. By contrast, these perceptions were reversed for control targets. However, communality did not protect male leave requesters from judgments of low rewards and high penalties. Instead, being effeminized as weak was a significant factor in predicting both rewards and penalties, and fully mediated the effect of poor worker stigma on penalizing men who request a family leave. The findings suggest that because weakness is prohibited for men (Prentice & Carranza, 2002; Rudman et al., 2012), men are penalized for this transgression, and those who request a family leave are particularly at risk for this consequence.

One of the more interesting parts (the "manipulation" is the reason for the leave):

female participants judged male targets as poorer workers than did male participants, regardless of the leave manipulation

The researchers go on (clearly displeased with the findings):

Unexpectedly, women did not shield male leave requesters from poor worker stigma, suggesting the extent to which women have been co-opted by ideal worker ideologies (Blair-Loy, 2004). The fact that women were just as likely as men to feminize male leave requesters is less surprising, given past research showing no gender differences for backlash effects (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010; Rudman, Mescher, & Moss-Racusin, 2012), but troublesome given its implications for gender equality. Because women are more likely than men to utilize FMLA (Hill et al., 2003), we had hoped that their reactions to male counterparts would be more positive than men's.

Women take a leave of absence 74% of the time, according to Rudman et al.

3. Comments

The results from these two studies aren't entirely new for some people. It seems that men must observe, as closely as possible, the gender norms for masculinity, but women seem free to chose from the continuum of gender roles (masculine to feminine). What stands out is that if men are in a so-called egalitarian relationship, one where child-rearing duties would be expected to be split evenly, the man is forced into a situation detrimental to him, and given the organizational risks (e.g. demotion, reduction in pay), to his wife, as well.

While some could (and do) say "men can take a leave, too," it is a lot like saying "women can have as many sexual partners as they want."

In both cases the statements are true (in terms of what can be done), but the consequences are conveniently ignored. Another 'point' for men observing traditional gender roles, as well as being in a relationship where such gender roles are at play. Men seem to only lose when they play by the rules of feminists.

The idea that feminism (or at least many of its adherents) has equality (however it is defined) of the sexes as its goal is not readily observed here. Given the nearly non-existent response from feminist women, one could be forgiven for thinking that feminism is just an excellent cover for female gender bias, and not true equality (or even some semblance of it). Feminism has seemingly exploited men's adherence to traditional gender roles (e.g. protector and provider) - it also doesn't seem to provide much benefit to abandoning them.

------------

[1] Coltrane, Scott, et al. "Fathers and the flexibility stigma." Journal of Social Issues 69.2 (2013): 279-302.

[2] Rudman, Laurie A., and Kris Mescher. "Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma?." Journal of Social Issues 69.2 (2013): 322-340.