Work and Leisure

220 John T. Haworth and A. J. Vealcontrol can enrich family life’ (Greenhaus and Parasuraman 1999: 409). Yet,they also note thatfamily experiences can also constrain opportunities for involvement inwork, and it is in this regard that gender differences are most pronounced.Women’s family responsibilities can severely limit their careersin ways that do not generally affect men. Women tend to choose occupationsthat are compatible with their family’s needs. They also limit theiraspirations for career advancement.(Greenhaus and Parasuraman 1999: 409)Greenhaus and Parasuraman call for the adoption of a life-stage perspectivein research, and more research into dual-earner families.Rapoport et al. (2002) argue from a series of action research projects inorganisations, conducted primarily in the United States, that it is possible toadvance gender equity and increase workplace performance; the so-called‘Dual Agenda’. They argue that only by investigating the link betweencurrent work practices and gendered assumptions about the role andorganisation of work will it be possible to identify major leverage points forsignificant, constructive change. They note that the US Corporate Model isspreading internationally as part of globalisation, and that from the perspectiveof working men and women the model has serious defects as wellas significant advantages. They see gender equity as a fair allocation ofopportunities and constraints for men and women in all spheres, in distinctionto focusing on equality which can lead to sameness and unfair outcomes.They consider that looking at work through a lens of gender equity or work–personal life integration can bring into focus obstacles to effectiveness thatusually remain hidden because they are unquestioned.Focusing on organisations does not, of course, supplant the role that statepolicies play in gender equity. Kay (2002) argues that state policies combine adirect practical impact with an ideological message. Part-time employmentmay confirm the female role as one of service to the household unit. Shenotes that lack of state childcare provision appears to be of considerableimportance in constraining the labour market potential of mothers andhouseholds in the least affluent sectors of society.Kay (2001) argues that gendered leisure and non-employment obligationsshould also be part of the equation in work-life balance. Within households,the capacity of male and female partners to individually exercise choice shesees as highly contingent upon explicit or implicit negotiation between them.Many studies have shown that, even when both partners are working, womenstill make a significantly greater contribution to domestic tasks. Kay draws onresearch which highlights key differences between men’s ability to preservepersonal leisure time, and the much more limited capacity of women to doso, replicating traditional gender ideologies, indicating a divide in men and