This week has seen another article by Cheryl Giavannoni, “Now we must tackle girls’ ‘confidence gap’”, about equalising opportunities for girls - if only they have the confidence to take them. At the same time, a provoking programme on BBC One, The Trouble with Women, has been fronted by Anne Robinson in which she challenges women to take hold of their rights.

As a woman, I’m not going to disagree completely with these formidable figures. But, yet again, only one side of the equation is being addressed. Too often the next step in the argument is that women then have to do everything: assuming a gladiatorial mind-set on the professional front before adopting super-nurturing skills in the domestic setting.

Such martyring perfectionism is simply not sustainable. It’s not particularly attractive either to us lesser mortals. Even allowing women to be just “good enough” still leaves something important out.

Because equality has to have two sides.

If women are to stay in employment long enough to build careers and narrow the pay gap, then someone else, either a childminder or a partner, needs to take a more time-consuming role looking after the family.

Anne Robinson had her perfect example in the family of a girls’ school head. The woman is in full-time 60 hours-plus mode, which seems to be the only way school leaders can operate these days, whilst her husband looks after their five children full-time. Excellent role-reversal.

If only attitudes around such a switch were equal to the perfectly sensible division of responsibilities. Anne Robinson’s tone and commentary showed all too clearly the prevalent belief that men are second-rate carers compared with women.

I had a considerable personal interest in this part of the programme as this choice was exactly the same as the one made in our family.

Employers’ maternity prejudice

The sticking point came after the birth of our first child when my husband, also a teacher, approached his school about downsizing to a part-time job. Unfortunately, the school was not willing to change his contract from full- to part-time. How often is a woman refused a part-time role when she starts or increases her family? We decided to take a risk: I returned to full-time teaching at the end of my maternity leave, and he combined working freelance from home with looking after our child, and then our second child, too.

If there is a glass ceiling in the workplace for women, then there is a glass door into the home for men. And it is not in the interests of women to allow this prejudice to persist for three key reasons.

Firstly, many women do want to have children as well as keeping a satisfying career on track; and many welcome their partner’s desire to take on a greater time allocation of the caring. Not all men are hungry for high-flying careers. What could be more advantageous for both parties than to switch gender roles?

Consider, too, the fact that satisfying careers don’t just happen in the workplace. The main “carer” in the family can sometimes be highly inventive and even entrepreneurial in the home setting in between domestic duties. The internet has made this a reality.

The second, less obvious but perhaps more socially significant, advantage is that if more men were to take on the main domestic role then perhaps employers would see men and women differently when it comes to recruitment and promotion.

For far too long, women of child-bearing age have had to convince interviewing panels that they really would be available at all times required by the employer and that they would be prepared to go above and beyond the call of duty in spite of having small children to raise. I wonder whether the male candidates with small children are asked the same question with the same persistence.

(Perhaps the slightly tangential question that should be asked here is whether the demands of promoted posts are sustainable for any individual, no matter what their responsibilities and family circumstances).

If working and nurturing patterns were to become more evenly distributed between the sexes, wouldn’t prospective employers be less likely to be, even unconsciously, prejudiced in a man’s favour? It’s not always what is done to protect just women’s rights that makes the greatest difference.

Finally, we are in the business of educating young people about a fair and equal society. If employment practice were to become more equally balanced, we would be modelling a fairer society, not just for women.

Yvonne Williams is a head of English and drama in a secondary school in the south of England