Women’s Dilemma: Career or Family
By: Katya A. Loviana
Gender equality in Indonesia kept showing progress throughout the years. Women can access the same education level as men, and it encourages them to participate more in the labour market. According to Tjiptoherijanto (1997), as cited in Wibowo (2011), the increase in female workforces is caused by the increase of supply, such as better education equality, and demand, such as the increase of female labour force. In addition, higher education also motivates women to occupy more decisive and important job positions. One of the government’s indicators in determining women’s participation in important roles is Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM).
Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)
Gender Empowerment Measure is one of two major indexes used to measure gender equality in socio-economic and political development. It was used first by HDRO of UNDP in 1995. The GEM focuses on three variables: political decision-making, access to professional opportunities, and earning power. The GEM looks at women’s representation in parliaments, women’s share of positions classified as managerial and professional, women’s participation in the labour force, and their share of national income. In short, it attempts to capture women’s political, economic and social participation (Charmes & Wieringa, 2003).
GEM data in Indonesia (Table 1) from Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) exhibits that gender equality has improved throughout 2010–2018. This improvement is driven by many factors, including Indonesian government actions.
Indonesian Government Actions
The Indonesian government has implemented actions throughout the years in order to achieve gender equality. Gender equality is one of the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) that Indonesia participates in and the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Protection of Children Indonesia stated, “ensuring that every woman is able to participate fully and receive the same opportunities to lead on every level of decision making in politics, economics, and public” as one of their targets in achieving SDG in gender equality. This statement is supported by many policies, including UU No.2/2008 which stated that every political party must consist of 30% female members.
Improvements are also reflected in the percentage of women with high position jobs, such as manager, that increases every year (Table 2).
Although the data shows progression, another highlight is the minor percentage of females. Many factors may have affected that and one that is assumed to be affecting the most is the dilemma women must face between career and family.
According to Dwiantini (1995), as cited in Wibowo (2011), the dilemma happens because women have a natural double role as a mother, who takes care of children and household activities, and as a female worker to earn money. Aside from that, Wentling (2003) also stated that one of the few barriers that hindered career development includes family obligation.
Family Obligation
Family obligation is assumed as a given factor that inhibits career development for someone in a family because obligations are commonly determined by society. Regardless of that, Becker (1985) explained that family obligation is related to energy allocation for work and comparative advantages of specialized activities. Men and women have intrinsically different comparative advantages not only in the production of children, but also in their contribution to childcare and possibly to other activities (Becker, 1985). Since comparative advantage is different for husbands and wives, family obligation is assigned between husband and wife in different ways and portions. According to Becker (1985), matching more energetic persons with less energetic persons would be more efficient because more energetic persons would allocate a majority of their time portion to effort-intensive activities, like work, in which they have a comparative advantage while less energetic persons would allocate it to household activities, like childcare, in which they have a comparative advantage. He also assumed that household work is primarily done by women regardless of their comparative advantage. In other words, it can be assumed that household work, such as childcare, becomes a woman’s family obligation. As women allocate her primary energy for housework, they have less energy to be allocated to her work and thereby leading to less productivity at work. In recent times, better education quality upholds women’s variety of comparative advantages resulting in the decreasing of comparative advantage in housework itself. This phenomenon causes more women to enter the labour market with the cost of children that reduces the size of families.
In line with that, the husband’s opinion, whether he supports or neglects it, is also significantly affecting women’s decision-making process. The strain of career demands contributes heavily to marital disruption, where her career demands conflict with the family role definitions of her husband (Houseknecht, Vaughan, Macke, 1984). It is also assumed that if societal prescriptions are such that men should have the dominant earnings share, and if social comparison matters for man’s utility, then higher female earnings might induce lower male happiness, therefore, affecting marriage happiness distribution (Rudolf, 2011). In the end, every married couple has their own definitions and principles for marriage and household. Cooperation and communication between husband and wife are crucial in order to achieve agreement within the marriage, especially in the terms of career and family.
Women’s decision between career and family is not based only on factors discussed before, but also on personal considerations and behaviour tendencies for each choice. Mankiw (2015) stated that making decisions requires trading off one goal against another and comparing costs and benefits of alternative courses of action.
Trade-Off
Trade-off is a balancing of factors all of which are not attainable at the same time (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). In career development for women, the trade-off discussed is commonly between work and family. Becker (1985) stated that the responsibility of married women for childcare and other housework has major implications for occupational differences between men and women. When a woman decides to do both work and family, one tends to be overwhelmed because also according to Becker (1985), childcare and other housework are tiring and limit access to jobs requiring travel or odd hours. This leads to an act of trading-off with cost and benefit consideration.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Betrand (2013), cited in Kuziemko, Pan, Shen, and Washington (2018), mentioned that the employment costs of motherhood might include the per-hour cost of a nanny or day-care service, the emotional cost of being separated from the child while at work, guilt over (perceived or real) underperformance as an employee or mother, or diminished sleep or other aspects of wellbeing due to working while also performing childcare activities. The benefit of a working mother, according to Das Poduval and Poduval (2009), includes personal benefits such as the essence of womanhood, financial independence that gives a sense of empowerment, and additional income to improve family’s living standard.
On the other hand, according to Adda, Dustmann, and Stevens (2015), the cost of bearing a child consists of occupational choice, lost earnings due to periodic stopping, lost investment into skills, and decreasing of skills while out of work and a reduction in work hours when in work. While a mother may bear the cost of raising her child today, its benefit can only be reaped in the future. Research by Bettinger, Haegeland, and Rege (2014) showed that children with stay-at-home mothers have better grades than those with working mothers. They also mentioned that parental care is not easily substituted for proving that a mother’s role in children’s education is crucial. This can be assumed as a long-term benefit for the mother because a mother’s pride in their children’s success is a common desire. Nevertheless, it may be slightly different for each woman according to their individual constraints.
Behavioural Economics
Daniel Kahneman’s 2002 Nobel prize lecture “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioural Economics” brought to the most prominent of public stages a compelling account of the deficiencies of the standard, neoclassical model of decision making (Kahneman, 2003). A framework by Kahneman and developed by Austen and Jefferson (2008) identified a hypothesis that women will avoid options that have affective labels related to self-interest (or selfishness) more strongly than men. This hypothesis explains gender differences in decision making that may have significance for inequalities in behaviour and outcomes. An analysis from Kahneman also showed how effective labels can be manipulated to either allow or limit options recognized by women and men. A study conducted by Johnston and Swanson (2006) discussed the significance of labelling as “good mother” — the one who is always there — or “bad mother” — one who is not. Another study conducted by Robson (2005), as cited in Johnston and Swanson, argued that the terms such as “good mother” or “bad mother” appear to evoke particularly strong affective responses and are influential in defining appropriate social roles and ideals for women attempting to meet the challenges of motherhood. This analysis shows that women’s natural tendency leads to the dilemma of career and family more than men. Labelling or stereotyping also plays a role in women’s decision-making process because women attempt to show an appropriate and acceptable image of themselves to society, making them choose what is appropriate rather than what they desire.
Conclusion
Gender equality progress in Indonesia has motivated women to develop their careers, yet many still struggle to face the dilemma of family and career. Becker (1985) explained how comparative advantage motivates men and women to choose their own activities, but women are assumed to have chosen to put aside comparative advantage while doing housework. Therefore, family obligation, as one of the factors discussed, affects women’s productivity at work because most energy is spent at housework activities. The imbalance of energy allocation then leads to the act of trading-off with cost-benefit consideration. Regardless of the cost and benefits mentioned, each woman may have their own list according to individual constraints. Behavioural economics theory used to analyse was proposed by Kahneman (2003) and developed by Austen and Jefferson (2008) explained how labelling and stereotyping influence women more than men in the decision-making process of career development.
In the end, each woman has their own personal considerations regarding career development with the dilemma of career and family. This writing only outlines the common factors with research results available while other factors unmentioned may also be affecting women’s decisions. Every married couple has their own view on the dilemma, and they all have the liberty to make any decisions they desire, both as a couple and as individuals.
References
Adda, J., Dustmann, C., & Stevens, K. (2017). The Career Costs of Children. Journal of Political Economy, 125(2), 293–337. doi:10.1086/690952
Austen, Siobhan & Jefferson, Therese. (2008). Can Behavioural Economics Contribute to Feminist Discussions? WISER Working Paper, 53, 1–29.
Becker, Gary S. (1985). Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of labour. Journal of Labour Economics, 3(1, Part 2), S33–S58. doi:10.1086/298075
Becker, Gary S. (1993). Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behaviour. Journal of Political Economy, 101(3), 385–409
Bettinger, E., Hægeland, T., & Rege, M. (2014). Home with Mom: The Effects of Stay-at-Home Parents on Children’s Long-Run Educational Outcomes. Journal of Labour Economics, 32(3), 443–467. doi:10.1086/675070
Badan Pusat Statistik. (2020). Distribusi Jabatan Manager Menurut Jenis Kelamin (Persen). Retrieved from https://www.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2018/06/05/1426/distribusi-jabatan-manager-menurut-jenis-kelamin-2016-2019.html
Badan Pusat Statistik. (2020). Indeks Pemberdayaan Gender Menurut Provinsi. Retrieved from https://www.bps.go.id/dynamictable/2018/08/15/1573/-idg-indeks-pemberdayaan-gender-idg-menurut-provinsi-2010-2018.html
Charmes, Jacques & Wieringa, Saskia. (2003). Measuring Women’s Empowerment: An assessment of the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure. Journal of Human Development: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development, 4(3), 419–435. doi: 10.1080/1464988032000125773
Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The Glass Ceiling Effect. Social Forces, 80(2), 655–681. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0091
Houseknecht, Sharon K., Vaughan, Suzanne & Macke, Anne S. (1984). Marital Disruption among Professional Women: The Timing of Career and Family Events. Social Problems, 31(3), 273–284.
Johnston, Dierdre J. & Swanson, Debra H. (2006). Constructing the “Good Mother”: The experience of mothering ideologies by work status. Sex Roles, 54, 509–519. doi: 10.1007/s11199–006–9021–3
Kahneman, Daniel. (2003). A perspective on judgement and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.
Kuziemko, I., Pan, J., Shen, J., & Washington, E. (2018). The Mommy Effect: Do Women Anticipate the Employment Effects of Motherhood? doi:10.3386/w24740
Mankiw, N. Gregory. (2015). Principles of Economics (8th ed). USA: Cengage Learning.
Poduval, Jayita & Poduval, Murali. (2009), Working Mothers: How Much Working, How Much Mothers, and Where Is the Womanhood? Some Issues in Women’s Studies, and Other Essays (A.R. Singh and S.A. Singh eds.), MSM, 63–79.
Rudolf, Robert. (2011). Employment, well-being, and gender. Germany: Peter Lang.
Wentling, Rose Mary. (2003). The career development and aspirations of women in middle management — revisited. Women in Management Review, 18(6). 311–324
Wibowo, Dwi Edi. (2011). Peran Ganda Perempuan dan Kesetaraan Gender. Muwazah, 3(1), 356–364.
