Abstract
The tensions and pressures that mothers experience when they have to make decisions about combining the care of children with entry into the labour market are by now well established. Much of the research in this area, however, has focused on Europe or North America. In this article, the focus is on a society where women’s employment and its relationship to childcare has seldom been explored: Iran. Iran has often been presented as a state that is not particularly women-friendly and as distinctly different from the seemingly more pluralistic and egalitarian states of Western Europe. The argument here is that mothers’ employment in Iran should not be viewed through clichés of religion and patriarchy, rather that it is significantly affected, as in other countries, by care structures, the general acceptance of leaving one’s children to a caregiver, the availability of employment opportunities and the general policy environment.
Introduction
The tensions and pressures that mothers experience when making decisions about combining the care of children with entry into the labour market are already well established. Simon Duncan’s work, amongst others, has shown how values and ideals of care are key contributors to such processes (Duncan and Edwards, 1999; Duncan, 2005; Bull, 2009). Others have highlighted the role that the structures of childcare outside the family play. Comparative welfare state regime theories, for example, have emphasized how employment patterns are shaped by the diversity of welfare states (Daly and Rake, 2003). This is a particularly apt argument in relation to women’s employment. Lewis (1992) argued that gender welfare regimes, namely, strong male-breadwinner states such as Britain, modified male-breadwinner states such as France and weak male-breadwinner countries such as Sweden, are crucial elements in explaining women’s employment patterns.
This debate, however, has largely focused on European and American welfare. Wood and Gough (2006) contend that there have been few efforts to discuss non-Western social policy in a comparative frame and even feminist social policy is concentrated largely on an analysis of models of gender relations in welfare states in capitalist societies (Moghadam, 2006). As Gough (2000), Kwon (2005) and Wood and Gough (2006) show, these welfare models seldom fit the welfare regimes of non-capitalist societies, but there is not simply a lack of analysis of welfare in non-capitalist societies. Just as criticism of European welfare analysis pointed to the need for a gendered analysis, Moghadam argues that gender analysis of welfare is also missing in the Middle East (ME). ‘Literature on social policy in the Middle East is fairly sparse; that on gender and social policy is almost non-existent’ (Moghadam, 2006: 221). One of the difficulties of Moghadam’s analysis, however, for anyone trying to understand contemporary relationships between work, family and welfare in Iran is that her central indicator for analysis of economic citizenship in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is based on the states’ reliance on Islamic family law and therefore fails to consider the wider cultural factors and care structures affecting involvement in the labour market. This is in apparent contradiction to her earlier work in which she states ‘historical analysis shows that this division of labor is hardly confined to Islam but is in fact a cross-cultural characteristic of gender relations’ (Moghadam, 2000: 379). 1 It is these questions that this article attempts to address, i.e. whether welfare provision for mothers and children is affected more by cultural attitudes than by law and how a growing gap between care structures and services and changing attitudes represents a new type of tension between women, men and the state.
Such a question is not so far from policy analysts’ concerns in Europe. Pfau-Effinger argues strongly that:
Cross-national differences in the development of female labour force participation rates and part-time working … cannot be explained by simply referring to welfare state policies, but by the complex interplay of culture, institutions, structures and social actors within the respective gender arrangements. (Pfau-Effinger, 2000: 8)
In sum, the relationship between welfare, women and childcare is more complex than previously considered and an analytical framework for developing as well as developed countries must provide a comprehensive and adequate explanation for the analysis of women’s employment and care arrangements in order to be able to demonstrate the interaction between ‘structure’ and ‘agency’. The research reported here has been undertaken in the belief that women’s behaviour in the labour market in countries such as Iran should be considered in the context of the same complex interplay of cultural, institutional and social factors as European analysis. Understanding the relationship between care arrangements and women’s participation in the labour market needs to take account of structural factors and cultural factors. Both may contribute significantly to the explanations of the diversity of women’s employment across nations.
Women, education, work and childcare in Iran
Examination of employment and education statistics shows some interesting developments and paradoxes regarding women and work in Iran. A rapid review of women and work, for example, shows the largest concentration of women workers is in the public sphere. According to the most recent Census in 2006 (Statistical Centre of Iran, 2007), 33% of Iran’s female labour force was in professional jobs, concentrated in education, healthcare and social services, with slightly over half of all teachers in Iran being women; however, the female share of the labour force was less than 20%, considerably below the world average of 45%. Similarly, the proportion of female university teaching staff is, at 20%, less than those of Algeria (41%), Tunisia (40%), Turkey (38%) and Bahrain (36%) and less than 4% of employed women are found in senior, executive or managerial positions (Moghadam, 2009).
In contrast, the proportion of women in higher education is much greater. Women were given priority access to education after the Revolution in 1979 and as Shavarini (2005: 332) argues, ‘women’s tremendous speed in closing the gender gap in higher education is a phenomenon of the 1990s’. In part, this expansion of education was seen as a means of promoting a national ideology with the result that the percentage of state spending on education nearly doubled between 1976 and 2000 (Management and Planning Organization, 2001). For women, however, it has offered more than instruction in a national ideology; by the turn of the 21st century women made up the majority of those entering higher education, even in the traditional fields of engineering and science, 2 and according to some, this has engendered new expectations, with some research indicating that young women prioritize careers over marriage (Bahramitash and Kazemipour, 2006; Khatam, 2006).
A number of factors are likely to mean this will lead to tensions and changes in maternal decisions about work and childcare, i.e. the arrangements between market and family that families themselves make. It is this that constitutes the main focus of the empirical research presented later. Here though, the question raised is whether there has been a shift in the other element of the state, family and market relationship – have there been any changes in the arrangements between the state and family that would affect mothers’ willingness or ability to work in Iran?
Women, work and family policy in Iran
In the context of Iran’s social policy, women are accepted as both ‘carer’ and ‘worker’. However, motherhood has been seen as a woman’s key role, i.e. women can work so long as they do not neglect their main role as mother and the agent of stability in the family unit. For example, on the occasion of Women’s Day, the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei, said ‘Islam has entrusted women with the responsibility of administering the society, but their most important duty concerns social activities. … Islam’s emphasis on the unique role of women in the family does not contradict their presence in other fields’ (Khamenei, 2007: 1). So, whilst women’s employment and socio-economic activities are seen as vital to social well-being and economic growth, at the same time their responsibility as citizens is at home, occupying the role of wife and mother, the agent of peace and stability in the family. According to former president Khatami (1997), ‘we want a woman who is the pivot of the home to be the manager and master of the house. At the same time, there should be absolutely no reduction in her social responsibilities and active presence in society’. It still remains the expectation of Iranian society that women fulfil three roles, as wife, mother and worker, albeit within a modernized context. For instance, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, current president, argued that ‘The protection of woman’s qualities is our responsibility. … With all the social responsibilities which are in the hands of today’s woman, woman’s role as a mother should be protected and we should value it’ (2008: 1).
In the light of the above discussion, understanding the overall nature of Iranian family policy is in some ways a key to understanding work and family reconciliation policies in the country and the tensions that the employed mothers reported in this article. The government explicitly recognizes the family unit as a target for policy rather than promoting the interests of individuals. Families and children are the focus rather than women as workers and, as Giddens argues elsewhere, ‘the care and protection of children become a key guiding principle for family policy’ (as cited in Ahlberg et al., 2008: 80). For example the Centre for Women’s Participation Affairs (CWPA) changed its name in 2005 after the new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power. The centre has been renamed the Centre for Women’s and Family Affairs (CWFA) as a reflection of greater attention to family matters from the government. The government identifies the family as a social institution founded only on marriage, and the state has a duty to protect it. For instance, in addition to paragraph 107 of the Charter of Women’s Rights and Responsibilities (CWRR),
3
paragraph 7 of the Principles of Women’s Employment Policy states that:
there should be the provision of necessary facilities for the use of professional and educated women’s abilities so that their attempt in playing their role in the family and life situations would not lead to their withdrawal from these social activities. (APSCCRW, 2005: 26)
This may suggest that women’s role has become less limited. In reality, the focus on women’s role within the family is a result of a traditional pronatalist Iranian culture; children are the centre of the family: women are not necessarily subordinated within it.
Regarding the arrangement between state, market and family in Iran – according to the analysis of key government documents 4 by the author, while the duality of women’s role as a ‘carer’ and ‘worker’ has been acknowledged in Iran, the basis of childcare provision and policy focuses on ‘the best interest of the child’. In practice, childcare has not developed to accommodate the economy’s demand for labour or been developed strongly on the basis of what will work for women. Overall, childcare policies have been more focused on pedagogical assumptions (the socialization of the children and the child–mother relationship) than on facilitating the type of employment that mothers and society want. Leira (1992) suggests that ‘socio-cultural interpretations of childhood and motherhood necessarily influence the ways in which society and family respond to childcare needs’ (p. 133). Iran is no different. In this context, Kian-Thiébaut (2008) argues that child centredness is one of the most fundamental aspects of family change in post-revolutionary years. One of the factors that can explain this transformation could be that ‘the Revolutionary movement weakened the traditional hierarchical order, which was founded on patriarchal authority and paternalistic monarchy’ (Kian-Thiébaut, 2008: 101). Today, the focus of most families in Iran is more on the quality of children’s lives rather than women’s subordination. Although women have had the main responsibility for family affairs and men have reserved the dominant economic position of breadwinner, since the 1970s more married women have been joining the labour market, and a growing deviation from the sexual division of labour has emerged (Aghajanian, 2008; Mehdizadeh, 2010). However, the lack of full co-ordination between employment policy and childcare policy in the welfare system of Iran creates a tension for mothers wanting to combine care and work. So, on the one hand employment policy increasingly emphasizes women’s role in the economy and society but does not fully take into account the mothers’ need for childcare facilities or the work–family balance strategies 5 which exist in many other countries.
In relation to childcare, in recent years Iran has expanded Early Childhood Education, making it perhaps one of the most progressive countries in this field in the Middle East. Salehi-Isfahani and Kamel (2006) explain this as an institutional response to demographic changes, especially the sharp decline in the fertility rate in Iran in the 1990s; i.e., a decrease in the primary-age population is the key to the growth in pre-school enrolment. It does not appear that childcare for working mothers in Iran has been the underlying purpose: the purpose of day-care and pre-school establishments is aimed more at pedagogy than at allowing more women to enter the labour market. This has not always been the case; for example, between 1979 and 1991 government organizations were given the responsibility of establishing day-care centres for women employees and for the welfare of mothers and children and although the Labour Law of 1991 (Article 78) 6 obliges employers to provide childcare for working mothers, employers consider it to be the government’s responsibility to fill this gap and the current government is not so convinced.
Whether women who want to work accept their situation and can change it is a question worth asking. If individual attitudes are changing will this have an impact in Iran? But first it is necessary to know what these attitudes are. It is this rationale that underpins the research reported here. Accessing appropriate childcare may have become a problem for employed women and a significant barrier to employment, particularly for mothers with school-age children. The problems of providing childcare in a more flexible and responsive way may be more urgent than ever in Iran. Indeed, it can be argued that one of the crucial policy questions of the ME in the 21st century is how welfare policies can support ME families so that they will continue to be able to cope with the childcare needs of their citizens while at the same time participating in a changing labour market and whether there is a demand for change amongst women with heightened employment aspirations. The main aim of this research was to examine how current care arrangements are experienced by educated mothers, how these arrangements impact on women’s employment and their own role within the family and what policy demands are likely to come from women. A further aim of the research was to examine whether the current policy environment was one in which the changes that women want are likely to be met.
The study
In order to explore these questions the author, having examined key government documents relating to mothers’ rights as workers, carried out a survey of the experiences and attitudes of a sample of educated mothers, followed this up with interviews of a sub-sample of mothers from the main sample and undertook interviews with individuals, mainly women, who play a key role in relation to policy development in the country.
The focus was on a group of mothers in Iran whose employment expectations have risen over the last twenty years; mothers who have achieved at least High School graduation level. The selection of this group was based on two factors. Firstly the need to explore further the view that the push for education accompanying Islamicization has had the unintended consequence of engendering raised expectations of sustainable and career-focused employment amongst women with higher levels of education. Secondly that, whilst women both with and without higher levels of education experience tensions in managing work and home, debate in Iranian social policy about the proper role of education and employment has highlighted the potential tension between women and state in balancing family, education and employment.
Educated mothers’ and policy makers’ attitudes towards work and childcare are also examined and the possibilities of changes in childcare policy that could address the issues are explored. The study highlights the tensions that exist between caring and working for all women in Iran, but particularly for those whose employment expectations have been raised through education. It shows the strong values of caring that inform mothers’ and policy makers’ approaches to employment and social policy but asks whether this will lead to a consensual approach to future policy.
The main methods of data collection for the current study included both quantitative and qualitative methods; multiple data collection methods that allowed some measure of triangulation. The research data reported in this article were gathered through several methods, one of these being a questionnaire survey of a sample of 547 mothers (274 working and 273 non-working). The sample of mothers for the questionnaire survey was selected in Shiraz. A multi-stage cluster sampling approach was adopted and the unit of sampling was schools. The schools were chosen as a unit of sampling because Iran’s education system has universal, compulsory primary education; therefore all educated women with children are represented at school. In addition, there was a listing of all schools, the number of pupils at each school and local authority data on four areas of Shiraz city, which differ to some extent in their social composition and social class. Area four is a more deprived area than others. Areas two and three include more middle and upper class residents. Area one is mixed. This allowed the author to identify socially distinct areas of the city and select samples of schools representing this distinction. There was no list available of educated, working and non-working mothers with children at primary school. Whilst this could be seen as a disadvantage, sufficient responses from educated mothers were provided, and as the sample included both mothers who are working and those who are not, it enabled the author to explore attitudes towards past, current and future work and childcare, both early years care and school-age care, the latter having often been neglected, amongst both groups of mothers. Eight hundred questionnaires were sent to mothers from the selected schools. The author asked mothers to return it to schools via their children in the envelope provided and finally 547 responses were received.
Another method was the interviews, with a sub-sample of 14 educated mothers (seven working and seven non-working) and 15 interviews with key individuals from governmental and non-governmental agencies in Iran. The interviews with senior policy makers were designed to explore their attitudes towards childcare policy and working mothers and covered topics such as barriers to women and work, current policy and practice, and, perhaps most crucially, whether they thought there was the potential for change.
The survey respondents 7 had the following characteristics: all mothers had at least one school-age child. The majority had two children, while only a small minority had four children or more. The majority of the respondents (84%) were currently living with their husbands, while the rest were either divorced or widowed and living alone with their children, or with relatives. The majority were in the age group 31–40, over half had a High School Diploma, 26.9% had Bachelor’s degrees, 1.9% had a Master’s degree and the same percentage had a PhD. Of the 266 respondents who had a High School Diploma, only 50 were working. Of the 138 respondents who held a Bachelor’s degree, 116 were working. It should be noted that in the findings section, the direct quotations are taken from the interviews and the statistical data presented are from the questionnaire.
Educated mothers’ experiences of and attitudes towards employment and childcare
The article started by stating that the tensions and pressures that mothers experience when making decisions about combining childcare with entry into the labour market are well established in developed nations but not in ME countries like Iran. Responses from the mothers in this study made it clear that tensions in choosing to work part-time, full-time or not at all were evident amongst all the respondents, whether working or not. Although working was important to a mother’s aspiration for her own/family financial independence and also for serving society, reasons for not working highlighted the complexity of factors affecting decisions. As Table 1 shows, 35.5% of the respondents indicated that ‘difficulty in childcare arrangements’ was the major reason. 17.8% of the respondents said ‘restriction by husband’ was the main problem and 16.5% of the respondents believed that ‘shortage of job opportunities’ was the reason. Only 1.9% of the respondents indicated that restriction by religion was the problem, contrary to predominant beliefs that religion is a major factor in the issue of women’s participation in the labour market in the ME. One commented:
Men [our colleagues] don’t want to accept the view that women are on the same level of achievement with them … It’s a cultural aspect. I don’t think Islam has said such things. They say this for their own benefit. (Working mother, no. 3)
Reasons of non-working mothers for not working.
Note: Percentages and totals are based on responses.
Mothers were also asked if their husbands agreed to them working outside the home. The overall pattern shows that over half of the respondents (61.3%) said their husband had agreed. 24.4% said he had disagreed and only 14.2% indicated that their husband was undecided. According to the working mothers, the main objection of their husbands to working outside the home was ‘paying less attention to children and husband’, reflecting care values rather than a religious source.
My husband isn’t dissatisfied about me working but he does say I don’t want you to work so our child doesn’t get annoyed. (Non-working mother, no. 10)
For those who were working or had recently done so, tensions in managing the demands of work alongside childcare often appeared. Forty-five of the respondents indicated that they had left their employment in the last five years. Thirty-one mothers said that their reason for this was looking after children and family responsibilities and 7 of them said it was because of work-related factors such as low salary and long hours of work. Mothers were also asked whether they ever thought about leaving their job. The majority of the respondents (52.9%) said yes, while 47.1% indicated that they never thought about leaving their job. Although childcare was the major cause of tension (45.5% of the respondents said because of care of children), 19.3% reported work factors, namely, feeling tired of work.
The following example from a working mother who was a general practitioner but who is working now as a GP visitor in schools shows that long working hours can be an important factor in changing jobs.
I preferred to work in an education authority because of their hours of work and holidays. I was working in the Ministry of Health; I had to work during summer holidays too. I also had to work until 2.30pm every day. … for the sake of my children I changed my work. (Working mother, no. 3)
The questionnaire responses highlighted how the lack of childcare centres creates tension for working mothers, causing them either not to work or to leave their job:
As for married couples, their main obstacle to working is day care for their children. This can lead to them either not working or having to resign from their jobs. (Working mother, no. 11)
Mothers were asked whether availability of childcare ever affected their decision to work, on hours of work and on type of work. Table 2 presents their views. The majority of working mothers who like to work (60.9%) believed that the availability of childcare had the strongest effect on their decision as to hours of work. However, a large number of working mothers (66.7%) who do not like to work indicated that the availability of childcare has the same impact on the decision to work as on the decision regarding working hours. In contrast, the majority of non-working mothers that either like (80.9%) or dislike (79.2%) to work, believed that availability of childcare influenced most strongly their decision whether to work or not.
Effect of availability of childcare on mothers’ decisions.
It seems that shortages of social facilities for children were among the major barriers for both working and non-working mothers. When mothers were asked which childcare difficulties they encountered when they were working and or considering work, ‘lack of affordable, accessible and available childcare’ emerged as the most commonly cited factor.
I think children are 90% the limitation to employment. … If a woman has peace of mind in her job environment, she can do her work well. People always lack peace of mind. … I don’t send my child to a neighbour’s house or any other place. I need to be absolutely sure and feel secure. For instance, if I send my child to my mother’s house or my sister’s house or any other place, I feel shame. … I don’t want my child to be sacrificed for my sake. I can withdraw from my work myself. (Non-working mother, no. 10)
Combining demanding work and the needs of the family sometimes causes extreme time pressure for the mothers. This and the following quotation from mothers clearly highlight that:
I have lots of problems looking after children but I don’t want to lose my job. You know, I have gone to trouble, I am an educated woman and I like to be active in society. On the other hand, I love my family and my children. I like to look after them appropriately. (Working mother, no. 2)
One aspect which could be pursued since all respondents had at least one child at school was mothers’ attitudes towards school-age care. This is an area seen by many as one neglected by employers and policy makers alike. Mothers were asked what type of childcare arrangements they made for their child after school hours and if they felt it was easy to make this type of arrangement. Responses varied and ranged from using fathers, informal carers such as relatives, to more formal care such as childminders, but also included preferences for change in the world of work rather than family. Some would favour more home-based care as ideal care arrangements. One mother reported that the help from informal networks has been vital for her:
Because I have my family to help me, I don’t have any problems. But for mothers that don’t have anyone, things are very difficult. (Non-working mother, no. 14)
However, mothers often experienced difficulties in finding informal care. As reported by one interviewee:
He [my child] has to be left alone at home when I am working. … I have some relatives in Shiraz, but they have their own problems as they are also working mothers. (Working mother, no. 1)
A possible solution could be increased participation by fathers. Men’s lack of participation in childcare, however, can be partly explained by the fact that mothers perceived caring for children as a woman’s task. There was little evidence of changes, actual or desired, to the male-breadwinner model. One commented:
When he is at home, he looks after the children, but a man’s care is not the same as a woman’s. (Working mother, no. 11)
Childminders are used by working mothers, but not without problems. Using formal arrangements such as a childminder sometimes creates the problem of trust and raises the question of the appropriateness and the quality of the care provided, as one working mother explained:
When my child was in primary 1, I hired a childminder. I paid her 50,000 Tomans per month, including breakfast, lunch and use of the telephone. I had hired her to look after my child, but when I returned home, my child used to tell me that she [the childminder] had slept all day. Therefore, he [my child] had to prepare his own food and wake her up. She just used to watch TV, but I wanted her to educate and look after my child. (Working mother, no. 1)
Table 3 shows the main arrangements which the respondents who were working and wanting to work made for their children after school hours. None of these was seen as the perfect solution.
Mothers’ main arrangements for after school hours.
Note: Percentages and totals are based on respondents.
The extent of dissatisfaction with current arrangements was made even clearer when respondents were asked whether they thought school-age childcare was needed in Iran. Table 4 shows to what extent the respondents considered necessary the availability of childcare centres for after school hours in Iran currently. The majority of the respondents (89.1%) indicated that this facility was very necessary. Only 3.5% said it was not necessary. According to the result of the Chi-square (c2 = 2.402; df = 2; P = 0.301) there is no significant difference between the views of working and non-working mothers in this regard, thus suggesting that, as with pre-school care, the predominant value attached to childcare is a child-centred one.
Extent of necessity of availability of after-school care centres.
Pearson Chi-square = 2.402; df = 2; P = 0.301.
Mothers also expect the government to pay attention to children’s future and well-being.
I believe that the government has to concentrate on this issue now, and they will then see the results in the future. There is a lack of attention to our children’s psychological well being. For an 8-year-old child, problems such as being left alone at home can have disastrous consequences in the future. (Working mother, no. 1)
One final area of change was explored with mothers – whether they thought the world of work could adapt to the needs of working mothers rather than vice versa. The respondents working full-time were asked whether or not they preferred to work part-time. Over half, 51.3%, of respondents did not prefer part-time and 48.7% indicated that they preferred part-time. Those who said that they preferred part-time jobs were asked to give the reasons behind their preferences. The majority of respondents (79.5%) indicated that their main reason was ‘fitting work with family responsibility’, 12.8% said that it was because they ‘could not find adequate childcare’ and only 7.7% indicated that they actually liked to work part-time.
Mothers also desired more flexibility regarding their working hours.
If government provided an opportunity for women to work part-time or shift working hours to be the same as children’s school hours, I would therefore change my working hours to be with my children. (Working mother, no. 5)
Despite preferences for more childcare and for more flexible hours, many mothers have a desire to spend more time at home looking after their children and dealing with family responsibilities. This quotation highlights how ‘family’ is important to mothers:
I think life, i.e. family, is the most important. Besides that, if she works, she should do both well, not do one of them well and harm the other one. (Non-working mother, no. 10)
Women’s attitudes are shown here to reflect the tensions they experience in trying to work and look after family, but the study also highlights the constraints of lack of childcare, inflexible employment and difficulties in changing traditional divisions of labour within the home, as well as how those constraints themselves impact on expectations of change. Nevertheless, there is evidence here of desire for change. Will that make a difference? Paidar (1995) believed that Iranian women have contributed to the formation of the state and state policy as political actors and providers of public opinion and popular cultures and should not be ignored as agents of change. Historically, they have taken part in anti-colonial uprisings, armed conflict and nationalist movements and have shaped pressure groups for the improvement of their rights and interests (Fluehr-Lobban, 1980; Jayawardena, 1986; Yuval-Davis and Anthias, 1989). Esfandiari (2001) argued that in Iran since the Revolution of 1979, women from a broad social spectrum of society have become a major force in the improvement of their position. According to Shojaei (2003), the advent of the Islamic Revolution was a turning point in the Iranian women’s movement, as women from various social levels subsequently entered the public arena and have progressed somewhat from the margins of society towards the political centre. Nevertheless, there are contradictory tendencies. For example Gheytanchi (2001) argues that:
Certainly at the core of this ‘Islamic’ culture as triumphed by the Islamic Republic of Iran lie contradictory concepts of women that provide a space for empowering women as guardians of culture, revolution and moral values. …the very event of revolution brought women from all social strata into the socio-political scene as active citizens, while Islamic state ideology protected women as ‘weak’ and ‘emotional’ subjects whose primary responsibility was mothering. (pp. 557–558)
Women can be found in powerful and decision-making positions; even if not in large numbers. For example, the number of women candidates for parliament increased from 66 in 1980 to 585 in 2008. The number of women elected to urban and rural Islamic councils also increased from 1375 in 1998 to 1491 in 2006. Furthermore, for many years there have been two women in the Ministerial Cabinet and in 2009 a woman was appointed as Minister of Health and four women as president’s advisors. In addition, the number of women’s NGOs, which have an influence on policy (Rostami Povey, 2005), increased from 55 in 1996 to 980 in 2007. In this respect, Afshar (1998: 217) argues that ‘Iranian women fight in their corner, not in the name of liberalism, or feminism or any other Westernism. Of necessity they couch their demands in the language of Islam’. 8 Similarly, Bahramitash (2003: 237) argues that in Iran ‘much of what women have gained has been through the effort of those Islamists … many secularist women have joined Islamic women … many changes have become possible’. Nevertheless, according to Shirodi’s (2005) study, which attempted to establish which groups of women have played active roles in the socio-political development of Iran since shortly before the Constitutional Revolution (1905–1906), the historical evidence shows that Muslim women in general rather than women who were oriented to the West or East have had a determining role in socio-political activities. However, despite their increasing influence, women have not always been able to publicize their thoughts owing to their lack of access to publication facilities. If this is the case, then it could be argued that with the views expressed by the women of this study there could be change if they were transferred into political demands.
The translation of the developments mentioned above into actual laws, policies and care structures that will benefit women, however, is likely to be slow if policy makers are not aware of need and demand and if women’s views are difficult to express within the political arena. The changing nature of the politics of Iran is not the focus of this article but has a significant impact. Nevertheless, the research examined the views of a range of policy makers towards women’s employment and childcare in 2005 and in so doing established whether the issue of women, work and childcare was likely to come under consideration for future social policy change.
Policy makers’ views and attitudes towards women’s employment and childcare
Fifteen interviews with individuals, mainly women, involved in making policy or in a role where they could influence policy were conducted in order to explore this a little further. Among these were female MPs, senior academics working in the area of social policy, female managers of non-governmental childcare centres, and the female Manager of Workers’ Welfare in the Ministry of Labour.
Their views regarding women’s employment problems in Iran are presented in this section, along with what policy makers and policy influencers 9 think should be the key features of childcare for working mothers in Iran and what they think is the likelihood of policy changes.
Most policy makers are of the view that the main problem for working mothers is the pressure they experience from performing multiple roles well. The following quotation highlights this:
Sometimes people from other countries come to Iran and ask this question: what is the problem of your employed women? I always say our women have the problem that … they want to be a good worker … a good mother … a good wife, and a good daughter for their families. In fact, a combination of all these things has worn women out. We should help our women in society. …women who have … high abilities and talent, can really help society. (GO, Policy maker, no. 12)
However, interviewees felt that this support was not always available and usually the mother had no help from others. One non-governmental source commented:
Before, there was the extended family … But now there are issues of women’s employment and urbanization and we don’t have an extended family. (NGOs, Policy maker, no. 1)
Some, but not all, of the NGO interviewees argued that the major problem for working mothers is the lack of affordable, accessible and available childcare centres. In this they were largely in agreement with mothers of the study. For example, one NGO interviewee commented that:
This is the duty of the government – for the welfare of all and to create employment for women, appropriate childcare facilities should be established at low cost and near the work place. (NGOs, Policy maker, no. 6)
Further criticism came from another NGO interviewee who argued that:
it is necessary that supportive laws are devised that guarantee women’s participation in both fields. In this respect, we are just at the beginning. (NGOs, Policy maker, no. 11)
This interviewee also commented that laws will not produce automatic change and the Labour Law (Article 78) 10 remains more of a theory than actual practice.
Childcare as the solution was not a universal view. Government-based interviewees were much less likely to see this as a necessary area of change than mothers themselves:
In my view, I see few problems in the existing law. I don’t believe women do not work because they do not have access to childcare. First of all government organisations mainly have childcare centres and non-government organisations get financial support through labour regulations. I do not think we have any problems with childcare. (GO, Policy maker, no. 4)
Iran has a very youthful population and concerns about the government’s capacity to respond to women’s demands or create full employment are reflected in the response of one government official who argued that limited job opportunities meant mothers did not have a great deal of choice:
Because of limited employment resources, women can’t choose any job. Even men can’t. Of course, this is not without some effect. If the existing protection law were implemented in the right way, the efficiency of women’s employment could be affected. When mothers are worried and appropriate childcare is not available for their child, of course there isn’t work efficiency. (GO, Policy maker, no. 5)
The centrality of family to solutions was further evidenced in one government official’s views that:
We proposed a reduction in women’s working hours. If women pay attention to themselves and their families we will have a good society. … our views were about spending and budgeting. This budget allocation is not spending; rather it is investment. … a woman with peace of mind and emotional security does her job and has social responsibility. (GO, Policy maker, no. 3)
Children’s education was the main concern of some of the policy makers in this regard:
The principle of the family is the child’s education. Children are our generation and we can’t sacrifice them for mothers’ work. We need to think and find a solution. (GO, Policy maker, no. 12)
The range of views of those involved in the policy field was considerable. Nevertheless, there appeared to be some measure of agreement that tensions exist and that women are needed in the economy. It did appear that government-based interviewees were less likely to see the need for significant change but there was little evidence that the demands of educated women would be ignored.
Conclusion and discussion
Overall, this study highlights the very real tensions that exist between caring and working for all women in Iran and that the scarcity of satisfying solutions made available to them produces tension within these women’s lives, morale and family. Focusing on educated mothers has allowed an examination of how this impacts on those whose employment expectations have been raised through education. In many ways the picture is similar to that in other countries insofar as care structures, attitudes towards leaving one’s children with a caregiver, the availability of employment opportunities and the general policy environment all appear to play a part in the environment that mothers have to negotiate in establishing a relationship with the labour market. It shows the strong values of caring that exist at micro and macro levels that inform mothers’ and policy makers’ approaches to employment and social policy in Iran.
However, the study also highlights the frustrations that have accompanied the significant expansion of education for women over the last twenty years in the country; an expansion not matched by employment opportunities and childcare services. Taking that educated mothers’ attitudes towards joining the labour market in Iran proceed mainly from cultural values and ideals concerning childcare, the argument here is that a stronger stand of policy makers in favour of developing care services of better quality would make this choice easier for mothers. Nonetheless, the expansion of childcare alone is less likely to result in increasing women’s employment rates if it is not followed by women’s choice and preferences for the fulfilment of the role of motherhood, as well as in combination with other strategies such as time reduction to promote free choice to fit with working mothers’ needs and preferences for the reconciliation of work and family (Mehdizadeh, 2011).
The Islamicization of Iran over the past thirty years and its impact on social policy have not been examined in depth here. Indeed the interviews with government policy makers suggest that religion is not a major factor made explicit in policy considerations. Nevertheless, the emphasis on family strength and the child as the priority of both working mothers and the state, suggests that this area of social policy may produce political as well as personal tensions. However, it is clear that in practice, tensions result from a lack of childcare and work-related welfare/support policies (Mehdizadeh and Scott, 2011).
In sum, Iran clearly needs the expansion of childcare facilities. However, this does not mean that if the structure of social policy regarding childcare welfare provisioning increased, the women’s employment rate would automatically rise. The role of the mother as a caregiver for her child is given considerable weight culturally in the society of Iran, but, as Kremer (2007) suggests, ‘new employment patterns only arise when an “appropriate” solution is found for care in each country’ (p. 235). Mothers’ decisions regarding work and care are shaped by ideals, values and structural constraints; however, this study shows that none is fixed and the situation may be much closer to European debates than many imagine.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Emeritus Professor Gill Scott for her valuable comments on the early draft of the article as well as comments by anonymous referees.