Guys, a word of advice, women are not the problem: history is

Michael Noer, writing for Forbes.com on 22 August, advised men not to marry career women. Elizabeth Corcoran responded [see http://www.forbes.com].

The premise from which Noer wrote was that career women are more likely to get divorced and so men would be advised to marry a stay-at-home wife. For many couples in the UK, however, two incomes are not a 'nice to have' but a 'must have' in order to make ends meet so surely it is time for men and women to stop bad-mouthing one another and work together to create relationships and organisational structures that allow for and support both work and home life.

The problem lies not in women but in history and in the stereotypical perceptions of marriage, built up over centuries, that a marriage 'should be' a man out at work, a woman at home. Yet this arrangement was created way before women were educated, before the pill, before equal rights. Surely we have gone beyond this but whilst the traditional model of marriage remains in people's minds it leads people to believe that today's marriages are 'wrong' and not working.

We can't turn back the clock but I think it is helpful to understand that we are in a transition phase which requires both men and women to adapt. The changes affecting career and marriage are very recent in historical terms - the pill came in during the 1960s, the Sex Discrimination Act was only passed in 1975, followed by the Equal Opportunities for Women Act in 1987. Before that there were gradual changes. The First and Second World Wars created a demand and women became an essential part of keeping both the war effort and manufacturing going but were then encouraged back to the kitchen sink during the 1950s.

Divorce is only a recent option for women as historically they had few rights. In the 19th century it was only open to men (who could still legally beat their wives, which gives an indication of the weak position of women in society). Women lost their social and economic status after divorce and were not granted access to children. Even in the 20th century women were not allowed to divorce a man for adultery. It was only in 1967 that women gained similar rights to the marital home and women frequently experienced difficulty even in the 1970s in taking out a loan or mortgage without a male guarantor. It is all too easy for Noer and the social scientists to imagine that marriage in past times was idyllic but there were plenty of men and women trapped in marriages from which they could not escape.

It is hardly surprising therefore that the current situation where both men and women work feels uncomfortable; thirty years is no time at all in historical terms and the beliefs, behaviours and attitudes surrounding these issues change even slower. So let us not berrate today's men for yesterday's injustices, nor lay all the ills of society at the feet of today's women. As ever, it takes two to tango and it will take both to work out a better future that will benefit men, women, and children.

So what can be done? I believe the majority of men are supportive of women having equal rights and many benefit from not being the sole breadwinner, which can be isolating and a burden, especially in an age of instability and redundancy. Equally many men are enjoying closer relationships with their children than the rather distant fathers of previous generations. Women are able to use their minds and contribute their skills in the workplace and in general this is a more fulfilling situation for all parties. Children witness both mothers and fathers using their minds and talents and thus become aware of how they might apply their own potential in the workplace.

Of course there is and has always been the temptation of extra-marital affairs. The health of the relationship itself is far more important than it was in previous times now that the balance of power no longer lies solely with the financial status of the man. Women had little option but to stay in unhappy marriages due to their inability to be economically viable on their own. It was interesting to note, however, that neither Michael Noer nor Elizabeth Corcoran used the word love in their articles and yet this is surely the 'glue' in a marriage. Instead, they wrote in task-focused terms, other than a brief reference to an anniversary dinner. And yet it is love, intimacy and companionship that draws people into relationship and marriage - otherwise Noer would simply advocate a maid.

One of the key reasons that career women divorce more often is likely to be that the changes on the home front are taking longer than the changes on the work front. Recent research shows that women remain the main carers of children and elderly relatives; and still do the majority of household chores. If they are indeed working as hard as their partner and earning as much then it is hardly surprising that there is some discontent where these responsibilities are not being shared.

A major difficulty lies in the structure of organisational life. Orgnisations were mainly created by men for men with wives at home. The norms of working life have therefore been developed on this basis. This is not a criticism; it is a fact, and it leads many senior women to feel 'wrong' because they are doing things differently. It doesn't help that working life continues to run 'as if' there was a wife at home even when it is patently evident that this is no longer the case. Childcare in the UK is expensive and unsatisfactory and the tax system unsupportive in a country with a decreasing birth rate. It is time for organisations to encourage men and women to address these issues and work out solutions for the future.

Organisations can help by providing flexibility of working hours for both men and women. Despite family-friendly policies the long-hours culture is still firmly entrenched in many workplace cultures. Change does not have to be radical but attitudes need to be more flexible; small concessions make a huge impact both to individuals and to productivity. Employees exhausted from the effort of balancing work and family are neither likely to perform well nor to be rewarding marital partners. Societies built on contented family life are likely to be healthier and also enhance the economy.

So let us create this new world together, not fight about it. Most couples need two incomes. At the same time, love and happy family life are a rare commodity and have been undervalued in a world of long-hours and material aspirations. It is easier to earn money than it is to find love, and it takes careful attention from both parties to keep that love alive and make it work. You cannot go to a supermarket and buy it. So it is helpful for men and women to accept that this transitional phase may be rather uncomfortable for all concerned but that a partnership of equals sharing and distributing home and work responsibilities together can benefit all concerned, including the organisations for whom they work and the society in which they live. Either way, don't let's live by the outdated beliefs and stereotypes of a byegone age, as Michael Noer seems to want us to do. Let's move forward.

Read about Positiveworks' Diversity Programmes

30 August 2006