The same great conversation referred to in my last post also generated an interesting example of how the same behaviour can be given completely different interpretations. And, of course, it is our interpretation which determines our reaction to it.
The group discussing challenges faced by high potential women also observed that men seemed to prefer a long hours culture because in recent years they were, if anything, making this even more "the norm". The conclusion reached was that, whatever they said in public, men didn't really enjoy domestic life and were glad to have an excuse to escape it.
Which struck me as having some truth in it, connecting with the belief that men "aren't naturally well equipped" to do it and and that they "tend not to be very good at it" - the latter something that most men have been told at some time! But my female colleague helped me see an even deeper psychological perspective which made me wonder if this was the whole story - or even the real story.
Here's the thought. What if at some deep and very unconscious level, men were seriously threatened by the growing power of women, worried what they would have nothing left if women dominated both in the domestic role and at work. Actually, to me that fear isn't so deep or unconscious! What could men do? Well one thing they could do is use the same biological advantage they have in sports to work "faster, harder, longer". That's a game stacked in their favour (as always talking in huge gender generalisations here). So maybe the long hours culture is not running away from the domestic role, it is running away from the competitive threat posed by women.
Another interesting one! It doesn't provide a magic solution to the long hours culture, but it does make it obvious that if this is actually male defensive behaviour, attacking harder isn't a good strategy for reducing it!