Forget 40. What about 21?

Source: Harold Lambert

"Why do we work so long and so hard? The mystery here is not that we are required to work or that we are expected to devote so much time and energy to its pursuit, but rather that there is not more active resistance to this state of affairs." - Kathi Weeks

I'm glad I have the ability and freedom to work, which for females, is a rare moment in history.  In fact, I generally like work -- accomplishing goals, acquiring skills, having a built in community, free lunches (yea, Google!), etc.  

But, after 7 years, I don't understand why we work so much.
My friend, Allison, sent me this article today that argues time is a feminist issue.  If everyone worked less, there's be more equality in the workplace.

It's a new side of the current "women in workplace" debate, sparked by Anne-Marie Slaugher & Sheryl Sandberg.  When I first read Anne-Marie's famous article on "Why Women Can't Have it All," I thought "no shit."  We only have 24 hours in the day (duh) -- which, is not enough to be AWESOME at your career and AWESOME at having a family, unless you're superhuman or an insomniac.  

I mean, I have a hard enough time waking up on time for work and feeding myself when Alan's away (takeaway pizza, anyone?) -- I'm nowhere near being double-awesome at a career and home life.  It takes time to be good at something, which is difficult if you're spread thin.

Sheryl Sandberg, on the other hand, has preached that "women can!" as long as they lean in and sit at the table.  While I applaud her for moving workplace equality to the frontpage, I think it's missing a few pieces:

• It's hard to ensure equality unless wages are transparent
• People naturally form "tribes," which makes it easier to be promoted when you look and act like your boss.  In most companies, it's still a white, type A, slightly-narcissistic male
• White-collar workplace equality means more women at the bottom, serving as nannies and child-care providers 

So, how is time a possible solution?

In the last 50+ years, women have entered the workplace, the population of the US has doubled and technology has improved efficiency -- yet, we still assume everyone should work 40+ hours.  

The math doesn't make sense.

Madeleine Schwartz states, "Both Fraser and Weeks note that the nature of work has changed since second-wave feminists first articulated their demands. Much work today takes place far from the office or even the desk. Employment has plummeted due to the global economic crisis, and workplace flexibility benefits only the boss. New technologies commodify social life. By developing a critique of work in the twenty-first century, feminism can build a deeper understanding of the new ways in which work is restructuring every part of life."

Likewise, The New Economics Think Tank in the UK argues that a 21 hour workweek would address "unemployment, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, overworking, family care, and the general lack of free time."

In our current society, it'd be hard to adjust to the reduced pay from a 21 hour work week (yet I think everyone could quickly adjust to a 4 day weekend).  But, let's say we live in the society of the future -- where technology reduces the cost of major expenditures like college education & healthcare, and people value time over accumulating material wealth -- in that society, it could be a real alternative.

Maybe that's the real revolution that women should be fighting for is the freedom to restructure work time for both men and women, rather than merely fighting to work overtime with the men.