United by divisions - Women who stick to tradition versus 'go-getting' women; the trade-offs

One conspicuous gender-related change brought about by shifts in ideology: Women in particular are no longer constrained by pressure to settle down, bear children, supervise a household, et cetera. “Women [have] increasingly become engaged with the public sphere of employment and state , and decreasingly confined to the domestic.” (Walby 2002: 4)

The predominantly knowledge-based economy relies heavily on an educated workforce. Thus, people with fewer qualifications are more likely to be employed in a low-wage, labour-intensive industry. And while educational reforms and changing expectations have made it easier for women to receive higher credentials, many females from earlier generations (few received more training than was offered at secondary schools) are restricted to certain types of jobs because they have insufficient qualifications. This scenario is all the more common in non-First World societies.

Though the availability of contraception has reduced the tradition of early marriages, many women are still bound by their biological configuration; that is, they are the only gender that carries offspring. While it is now possible to forego childbearing and childrearing altogether, many people still see this process as an integral part to describe a ‘family’. With this, a conundrum arises. By definition, housewives are generally restricted to the home – this usually means that dual income is less feasible, and even if achieved, tends to be unevenly distributed. Therefore, to maintain a full-time career while raising children is twice as difficult. From this, first-birth average age has soared. The downside of this delay is that women’s infertility escalates with age. The situation is dire – trading youth for comfort and economic stability, or waiting for ideal circumstances and putting one’s reproductive abilities in jeopardy. The generational gap has widened as a result of this lowered and delayed birth-rate.

Arguably, womens' mobility has increased dramatically, with the aid of modern transport, communication and global trade, and perks like the introduction of the Domestic Purposes Benefit in 1973 - giving parents (particularly women) with an absent partner a regular stipend for the purposes of sustaining their dependent children. (Focusing on women 2005:4) - but are they really starting from the same pedestal as their male counterparts?

It is also interesting to note the number of ‘unpaid family workers’ which, as predicted, comprise mainly of women (23,094 out of 39,567, or approximately 58%). However, that means that 42% of men have classified themselves as ‘unpaid family workers.’ This data can be interpreted in two ways: 1) The numbers of ‘unpaid family workers’ have declined significantly, to the point where both genders have a near-equal share in such duties; or 2) The number of unpaid men working in families have increased noticeably - could this also be attributed to changes in the gender regime?