Feminism and house prices

But the purpose built tenements of Glasgow & Edinburgh with their high ceilings large windows and special washing lines are a far cry from a 'two' bedroom flat carved out of one floor of an overpriced 3 bedroom house, meant for one family.

But I still think salaries have stayed low in comparison to house price because women are working and with two incomes they can afford more - if that's still the subject.

DH reckons there's a funny British resistance to living in flats or any kind of dense housing

An English middle-class resistance maybe, not so on Scotland where extremely densely built tenements are the norm. It is not unusual to spend your entire life living in flats or raise a family in one if you live in a Scottish city.

Of course the poor in England were shoveled into tower blocks whether they liked it or not.

And arrogant. Did I mention arrogant?

Sakura - I didn't miss the point at all; to suggest that I have is a lazy and ineffectual rebuff. You have simple taken a fact (which you acknowledge, at least) and then applied your own interpretation - which I disagreed with. There isn't a point to miss.

I thought we were talking house prices? On-site childcare may be good for those working in specialised industries or on shifts. How scary that your children could be brought up by your workplace. Not just an ordinary child, this is an M&S child...

Employees being less likely to quit may be better for P&G etc... but that doesn't necessarily mean it is better for the employee (sometimes its good for your career to quit and go somewhere else - but that is hard if your child is settled into childcare that goes with the job).

On-site childcare also doesn't help anyone with over 5s, or anyone who doesn't work for a big company.

I also think it makes it definitely one parent's job to worry about and be responsible for childcare (...you know, the one who thought that onsite childcare was an attractive employee benefit when he she made early career choices...)

I guess if P&G provides onsite childcare that improves the productivity of the mum who works there (at a cost which makes her more expensive to employ), but also improves the productivity of the dad who works for some other corporation (who don't pick up any part of the bill)...it just all seems to enforce the view that childcare should be the responsiblity of one parent. And we know which one that will be.

SGM - but why? what is the benefit of making childcare be tied to the workplace site - at the end of a potentially long commute and with only one parent able to do the pick-ups and drop-offs, rather than something that parents can choose to access closer to home and to schools- and pick the right childcare for their children (of all ages..) rather than the nursery that is provided by their workplace? It can be subsidised, but i don't see the benefits of on-site as being the best way.

FridaKahlo - probably one for a new thread, but I don't think subsidied workplace childcare is the answer. It's not clear why it should be the employers job to stump up for childcare. But also it would only help people working for big companies in 9-5 jobs, and it only helps people with under 5s.
Also may not help women's careers - its harder to change jobs if it also means losing your childcare place.

Subsidised childcare provided by either the father or the mother's employer anyone? Or would that be far too socialist?

Somebody's probably said this already but we women should know our place and know that our earnings have nothing to do with house prices.

It is widely endlessly reported that the boom really began in 1998, which is when the banks started to offer mortgages for higher multiples of income. And interest rates were reduced dramatically and stayed low.

That's all, let's not get carried away in thinking that our incomes are remotely important. It is possible however that women earners have kept incomes lower, as in a partnership you don't need to earn so much.

But changes in bank rules started all this off. That, and Thatcher selling council homes at a ridiculous price just to prove some capitalist point.

The way forward is to offer a choice of working patterns that enables a work/life balance to both men and woman, because childcare shouldn't just be a womans issue but the comment about bringing children into the workplace will just reinforce the belief that childcare is solely the perogative of the mother

Speaking of women who were or weren't in the paid workforce in the past, an elderly relative of mine (who never married) was an office worker in London in the 1930s. She said it was a pretty general policy that married women simply weren't allowed to earn wages--the idea was that a husband should support his wife, and she should leave and let a married man have a paying job. She recalled that occasionally women would be sacked for the crime of getting married, and there was one woman who was secretly married but kept on working, but only as long as she needed to stay in order to buy (wait for it) a vacuum cleaner.

Bugster can you and Sakura name, give a list, of workplaces where it would be possible for your kids to be close by...i'd be interested to see your suggestions

Nobody is really forced to be apart from their children, it's a choice a lot of women make either due to financial pressures or simply because they dont want to forsake a career they spent many years building.

Your arguements seemed to be based on the premise that woman automatically dont want to go out to work with small children but like many in my peer group I like the satisfaction of combining motherhood whilst still retaining a sense of independence by having a paid income

I agree with Sakura that today's workplace is inimical to women, and in many cases it should be possible for women to work with children close by. In a way that's why I think it's sad that many women now are forced to spend much longer separated from their children than they or their children would like, when it is still a workplace which favours men.

There are not many building sites where it would be sensible for DD to be close by me.

Err Sakura, I think that your statement 'there's no reason whatsoever why women cant work with their children close by' is bizarre

There is lots of jobs where this would be impossible. Work is ten times easier than being with the kids all day but maybe not as much fun.

Oh and don't start with the 'fuill-time parent' thing please!

"Taking away a parent's choice to be a full time parent, not a good thing"

But that wasn't the intention was it? The intention was that women whould be able to got out to work and earn a respectable income. To be able to hold their own financially. The mortgage issue was an outcome.

Similarly child labour was an evil that needed to be abolished. It would have resulted in increased prices. They also were an outcome not the intention.

Don't really agree with the child labour analogy. Obviously abolishing that was a good thing. Taking away a parent's choice to be a full time parent, not a good thing - in my opinion. Maybe some of you feel differently about that.

bugster, it's true that nowadays middle class women have been forced into the labour market, whereas they might prefer to stay with their children. Let's remember that working class women have never had the choice; they have always done the most back-breaking work on behalf of society.

But yes, the system right now is still not adequate enough because there are many mothers who are forced to separate from their babies when they're still breastfeeding. A caring society would not expect mothers to do this.

It all needs to change, all of it. There's no reason whatsoever why women can't work with their children close by (should they want to). Working culture is designed to be inimical to women, especially mothers. (Take "the city" for example and the way they entertain clients at lap dancing clubs. That is all so that women are excluded)
BUt this is basically a MASSIVE discussion

ooh, good analogy about child labour ORmirian. Yes, I'm sure that did increase labour and production costs.

So fucking what?

A lot more women could afford to stay at home than is the case now. Ok maybe they were mostly middle class and the poorest women still had to work, but I think it was a very different proportion from nowadays. In my town in the early 80s it was really unusual for a mother to work. In the same towntoay things have changed radically. In truth a lot of women have been forced into the.abour market.

Not wanting to be sexist I agree it would have been wrong automatically to disregard a woman's income just because of her sex. Perhaps it wou
D have been better to take into account one income, either the man's or woman's, whichever was highest.