If you're all about diversity ...

Also, part-time GPs aren't part-time. They work 12 hour days 3 days a week.

That is 36 hours which is roughly equivalent to full-time in the 9-5.

But it is flexible, and it does allow them to have days off.

Yes that's right and is for example why binmen were paid more than dinner ladies for similar level work because their work was more valued, because it was generally done by men.

That isn't anti-feminist, it's precisely the opposite.

And I also disagree that lots of more traditionally male jobs can't be done part-time. They can. You could easily have part-time binladies, or lorry drivers. You just structure shifts in a different way. Same for train drivers. Same for working at a household tip. OK you may not be able to accommodate school hours (9-3) as a train driver, but you can offer shifts 3 days a week. When people say they can't make it work, it's because they haven't tried.

AndI didn't post the article:

Interesting short article - essentially arguing that when identity becomes the main prism of social politics, white ethnicity or "indigenous" British identity will inevitably emerge among the people who don't fit in any other category.

And that racial competition and tensions will follow.

Tbh, in my sector what I typically see is employees wanting more hours. Our people on FT are capped at 35 hrs a week, and overtimes comes as time off.

The PT people are on an hourly wage and cannot go over 35 hours a week, historically they have tended to be less than that. Recently, I gave quite a few of my staff max hours when another employee retired - none of the were interested in working less. Part of that is wages, which aren't in my power to change and do need to go up in our sector. But it's probably also unrealistic to think there won't always be lots of jobs that are on the lower end of the scale.

There are also real issues of availability and training. My GP is actually two women, who job share one practice. This has been great for them as they have kids, and also great for their patients. But it is a problem when you consider how many places have doctor shortages, and how few people are suited for or want to do medical training, or how much it costs to educate a doctor. This applies to a lot of jobs that have significant expertise and qualifications involved.

This can even apply in less prestigious sorts of occupations. I'm staying with my brother at the moment, they are having a building crisis here, because there are not enough construction workers. This has implications for the whole economy here.

I agree that women often face difficulties in these jobs but the idea that a majority, or even a significant minority, of women want to do heavy manual work is fanciful imo. As far as part time being the default goes, I’m sure that works in some sectors but less so in others. It’s also surely never going to be the default unless that’s what the majority of people want (old, young, women, men), which again seems unlikely to me.

I don't see why it is the women who are disrespected because they were given clerical jobs, surely that's an organisational thing?

But on the subject of women and manual work: I often hear people/men saying 'I don't see many women queuing up to empty bins/sweep the streets/do labouring jobs' etc etc. The implication that women don't want to get their pretty little hands dirty is a laugh, given that most toilets, and dirty bums, are cleaned by women's hands.

Women who do try to do the tough manual jobs that are typically 'men's work' have been subjected to discrimination, bullying, harassment, abuse and sexual violence. Look at all the investigations into the fire brigade, the army, the construction industry. The treatment meted out to women who try to do 'men's jobs' is shocking.
I used to think it was something that just happened to the pioneers, the first women brickies, the first women firefighters etc. being punished for invading traditionally male spaces/'taking jobs away from men who have families to support'; but the report into the fire service which uncovered widespread sexist behaviour including rape threats, was published in 2023, so it's ongoing.

But it's the women who are blamed for not wanting to do the heavy or dangerous work! We can't win - 'A woman' place is in the wrong'..

Part time is never going to be the default for most jobs. Large numbers of jobs cannot function that way.

There is a reason less well paid jobs, on a hourly basis, are often the ones that are available P/T. Those jobs may not be easy, but they are pretty interchangeable. PT is an advantage for the employer in these situations as they may be able to pay fewer benefits, so they structure the jobs that way.

It's great when there can be job sharing and flexibility but it's never going to be the norm for most jobs.

Yes. And that will only happen when part time becomes the default preference for everyone. Talking about it as a preference for "mothers" provides the perfect excuse for it not happening. It just means mothers won't have access to the highest value jobs, as they "need someone full time"

My dh works in a street cleaning dept where 3 out of over 2000 manual workers are women. These 3 women were given internal clerical jobs ahead of any of the men who had much more experience and knowledge of the job. Now these women have zero respect from the men because of the way they were handed the (cushy non street sweeping) jobs.

The way you ‘set up work’ for mothers is by making part time possible. Not by forcing them into intense, full-time work and providing 24/7 childcare. Most mothers don’t want this.

But if you look at survey data most mothers want to work part time. I’m sure some are forced by circumstances but for a majority it is a preference.

I don’t know, I run a business and have what you might call ‘unfriendly work practices’ because the job requires it if is not going to fail. Many jobs require full time hours unfortunately.

I began a Dip Ed in 2000 and was horrified when I learned the numbers of kids who finish their schooling with a reading age of 7 or less. The vast majority of these kids are boys.
I was surprised to find most people I spoke to about it, and my circles were completely social justice, left wing types, just weren't very interested.

Curious to know your age bracket @OodleDoodleTwonk.
This is a debate within feminism that has been going on decades.
Last big flare up I remember was around the publication of Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In.

The idea that men and women overall will make the same choices is totally a faith position. There is little evidence for it - in fact where they have the most choices, women and men tend to choose differently more often.

To say that it's a required belief for feminism is to make feminism into a set of quasi-religious dogma.

Which it seems to be for some, but those people should not be surprised when people see feminism as a religion they have no interest in rather than a compelling justice movement.

@CassieMaddox Sorry - I was being a bit sarcastic! Its just that the same people claiming the gender pay gap is purely down to personal choice are also worried when women don't make that choice (cough Jordon Peterson cough). I think the pay gap is complicated - it doesn't just happen because of babies/children but they are a big part of it. If you want to tackle it you have to look at how having children disproportionally affects women and find ways to mitigate that. And I agree we are overpopulated, but if no-one had children or did the less well paid jobs we would be screwed. But not having children is the rational choice for women as things stand.

Women choose to have children, choose to prioritise spending time with those children over their career. They also choose less well paid "nurturing" jobs. This leads to a gender pay gap - but it is women's CHOICE to work in less well paid jobs. They could do what men are doing if they have a problem with

This is not true. The gender pay gap happens across industries and jobs.

There are not enough people choosing to do lower paid jobs, particularly the lower paid "nurturing" jobs leading to a recruitment crisis. Also, women are not having enough children - they are not choosing to deprioritize their own careers and earning potential enough. This is a crisis! And it is the fault of feminists for persuading women to act like men.

This is also not true. The world is over populated. Women keep being told not to have babies they can't afford/not to have them with the "wrong man". Not having children is a rational choice.

It's anti feminist to claim the reason women are less well represented in various spheres of life is because of "gendered choices".

This is really feminism 101 and I'm not sure I'm inclined to explain it

Most people want to be parents.
Most mothers are forced to work PT due to the fact work is set up for dad's

But it is empirically true that most women want to be mothers and most mothers want to work part time.

I don’t think feminism has to = men and women are exactly the same. It’s not anti-feminist at all to say that men and women may have different priorities. It would only be anti-feminist if we then said women’s priorities were less important/valuable than men’s.

Two things are true:

1. Women choose to have children, choose to prioritise spending time with those children over their career. They also choose less well paid "nurturing" jobs. This leads to a gender pay gap - but it is women's CHOICE to work in less well paid jobs. They could do what men are doing if they have a problem with it.
2. There are not enough people choosing to do lower paid jobs, particularly the lower paid "nurturing" jobs leading to a recruitment crisis. Also, women are not having enough children - they are not choosing to deprioritize their own careers and earning potential enough. This is a crisis! And it is the fault of feminists for persuading women to act like men.

In reality - to have a healthy well balanced society you need to look at the way caring responsibilities and childbirth/childcare disadvantage women in terms of earning potential or career progression. And look at ways of addressing that imbalance - because either it ends with women being hugely disadvantaged (not fair on an individual level) or it ends with less people choosing to do important but lower paid/status work (bad for society). Instead people go round and round claiming women should choose differently and then panicking when they do.

Yes, I agree with this.
Unfortunately this view that "women choose it" and "most women prefer to stay at home" only enables companies to continue to get away with family unfriendly working practices.
Feels like we are going backwards on it to me TBH.

I don't think it's group preference, but I do think a large part is the reality of the unequal load of parenting, rather than exclusively discrimination. It is no surprise to me that the women highest in my current company are either childless/child free or have a SAHP.

Companies want workers who will prioritise the job over everything else, and women are much less likely to have the freedom to do so. The job I mentioned above could easily have been a job share, I frequently worked 60+ hrs a week, but they wanted one person to work overtime, rather than 2 people working a standard week.

Headline gender numbers bolstered by women without children do nothing to remove barriers for the majority of women who have caring responsibilities. Incidentally, I left that job before having children because I knew I couldn't do it and still see my kids during the week.