My most recent post, building on a point raised by Scott Keir, rails against the pointlessness and waste of the traditional view that effective employment has to happen in a Workplace which is different from Home, such that one has to commute – that is, travel, physically – from one place to the other.
In the comment thread, Dr Rohn, for it is she, points out one of the disadvantages of being a homeworker, away from the office environment.
- In politically charged places such as publishing houses, anyone who works from home could be at a disadvantage,
she says.
- Out of sight, out of mind; one of my ex-colleagues working from home complains now that her schemes no longer get chosen at the (physical) brainstorming sessions without her there to champion them in person, and she is distinctly out of step with the upper management. A lot can happen at those pub lunches besides gout acceleration, after all.
My response was to acknowledge this, saying that such disadvantages could only happen under the current regime in which people have accepted that a line exists between Home and Work, when it is my contention that not only is there is no necessity for such a line to exist; but that the realization of its inexistence might have benefits for all.
However, Dr Rohn’s comment raised another point in my mind, one that has been much discussed in these fora, which is that there is a direct connection between the artificial distinction between Work and Home, and the seemingly intractable problem of discrimination against women in the workplace. After all, it is women, more than men, who tend to absent themselves from the workplace at crucial points in their career for perfectly understandable reasons of reproductive fitness; who are favored in so doing with maternity provisions which are, in general, more generous than those afforded to fathers (the implication, unquestioned, being that it is the father, not the mother, who is expected to be at Work rather than at Home); and who, sometimes, choose not to return to full-time employment afterwards, at least, not in a place of Work that is distinct from Home.
So it is that sexism is increased, and even engendered, by the choices we make – choices which are forced upon us by the artificial distinction between Home and Work. I contend that this distinction is something that we should not take for granted.
Rather, it should be confronted, for, in so doing, we might solve many more problems than those concerned with the work/life balance.
We might (gasp) reduce our collective carbon footprint, for one thing.
And, whisper it soft, by abolishing the primitive notion that one must travel somewhere else to clobber a mammoth do a job that might be done at least as effectively at home, we might even solve (or at least dent) the ingrained problems of sexism at work.
In this spirit I offer what I shall call the Conjecture of the Unicycling Girrafe, which is as follows:
- That discrimination against women in the workplace will be massively decreased if, and only if, the normative notion that work should take place in a location separate from home, is questioned, and, having found been found wanting, abolished.
Discrimination in the work place?
Well, I guess that would happen if everyone worked from home. Although you may just find that a greater proportion of women will work from home, with men going to the workplace just to get away from the lawnmower.
These things are never simple. What we need is a multi-million pound study of the effects of changes in working practice on inter-personal relations.
My lawnmowers are very quiet, and all female.
What we need is a multi-million pound study of the effects of changes in working practice on inter-personal relations.
No – what we need is more sheds.
Hsm. Doesn’t that in and of itself imply, though, that a woman’s place is in the home?
Sorry Henry. Don’t think that conjecture helps any.
Doesn’t that in and of itself imply, though, that a woman’s place is in the home?
No – it implies that home is the place for workers of either gender.
I don’t seriously think I’d like to spend all my time working at home.
Perhaps the conjecture could be reworded thus
I don’t seriously think I’d like to spend all my time working at home.
No, neither do I. I’d go round the bend. But at present most people don’t have the choice – they are compelled by a kind of managerial inertia to go to the office when they could achieve much the same things at home.
Yes that’s better. Although I’d s/gender/sex/ .
Iteration #3
Perhaps my fortune awaits here: manufacturing robotic avatars you can leave at the office and use to remotely attend meetings. Then your avatar can join that brainstorming session and, using remote audio, you can ridicule the ideas you don’t wish to see implemented. Sitting safely ensconced at home with your stereo goggles and your modified wii, you can “accidentally” spill your neighbors coffee to distract your colleagues as your rival makes her critical point supporting her competing plan. And, if your programming skills are sharp, you can automate many of our work functions so that you have more time to tinker in your shed on non-economic projects.
But wait! There’s more! Order today and…
Jon, that did make me smile (blearily … haven’t really woken up yet … cumulative commuting-itis. Not your fault. Sorry).
robotic avatars you can leave at the office and use to remotely attend meetings
These already exist. They are called ‘line managers’.