to think that many SAHMs/part-time workers would have chosen differently with the benefit of hindsight?

[working9while5]

Just a thought, have come across this on another forum and wondering how it applies to me.

I have just the one dc. Originally, I was desperate to be a SAHM but grudgingly decided to go back p/t but cut it back to the bare, bare minimum (2 days a week).

A few months down the line, if I am honest I am wondering how much my decision was framed by having a small, non-mobile baby and enjoying lunches with friends and Summer walks. As the hormones/baby shock wears off, I do wonder why I am not going back to work 3 or even 4 days.. and if my thinking was very short-term.

Unfortunately, I effectively "gave away" the bulk of my permanent, public sector job and there is a job freeze in my area. So, my (hormonally-driven? rose-tinted?) decision, while not final, is not so easy to go back on. I am studying for a postgrad too, so it's not the end of the world.. but it has made me think.

I wondered what mothers who are much further down the line think with the benefit of hindsight? Was that initial decision the right one for you, or was it influenced by newbabyitis?

Oh

Whenever anyone suggests restructuring society to benefit most of its members, not just a minority of them, there are always so many people wanting blather on about how impossible and unreasonable that is.

All they can see is potential problems, while being totally unwiling to acknowledge the appalling nature of the actual problem we've already got - the fact that most mothers, 40 years after equality legislation, still find it impossible or extremely difficult, to function as both mothers and employees. Do you really all find that so acceptable that the thought of trying to change it, is so appalling? Everyone always brings up this daft surgeon point, as if anyone is arguing that someone should be allowed to walk into a job at which their skills need updating and do it immediately the first Monday morning back after 2 years, 8 years or whatever. Please, credit people with common sense, but why do you think that the mythical surgeon isn't allowed to re-enter the profession, update her skills and then operate and continue her career trajectory?

It is NOT sexist to point out that men have structured the world and its institutions, including the workplace for their needs - indeed, a minority of priveleged men did so and everyone else has had to slot in to what they found adapted to their wants. We need to change those institutions and practices, not by slotting into them, but by changing and adapting them so that women AND men can function in them and can function at home as well. If the Guardian article is right, men should be fighting with us to get more flexibility and work life balance.

As to the de-skilling point - that is the excuse that is given to pay women consistently less than men. I accept that if you have lost many of your job skills, then you may have to take a slight hit on er-entry to the workplace - although let's acknowledge that looking after children gives you other skills that you didn't have before - but the hit that women are taking is massively disproportionate to the amount of time they take out of the workplace. And that is not due to lack of skills, lack of willingness to update training, etc., it is due to lack of opportunities, lack of flexibility and institutional, ingrained sexism in the workplace which for some reason, people have a great deal of difficulty in acknowledging.

(sigh)

Really cant see how it's being 'impossible' to recruit the best person for the job, whether they are male or female.

As to the point about caring for children giving you other skills that you didn't previously have- well, at last something we agree on! Yes, it does give you skills. But the point is that those skills are still only going to give you the edge over someone who has been at home, not working and WITHOUT children. Working parents have developed those skills too- nurturing, budgeting(nothing like nursery fees to force you to budget wisely!) managing your time well. As a working mum, I developed these skills in abundance. My DH too, when he became a parent, developed these skills. I'm not knocking these skills whatsoever- I genuinely believe that parenting effectively requires enormous skill, some of which is transferable to the workplace- but my point is, working parents will have developed them while continuing to develop their specific work skills too

Because at the moment VH, most employers are not necessarily recruiting the best person for the job. Because so many mothers are systematically excluded from the workplace, or only allowed in at a much lower skills level than they are capable of, the talent pool is smaller than it needs to be, so the best person isn't necessarily in it - she's been excluded because of sexist assumptions and practices.

Apart from anything else, this is appallingly inefficient. We spend all this money, public and private, on educating and training workers and then we marginalise them and don't allow them to use their skills. It's a bit like with older workers, who are struggling to function within an out of date pension system - many people would be perfectly capable of working 2 days a week until they're 80, but are not capable of working 40 hours a week in their sixties, so it's all or nothing - either you retire and do the garden till you die, or you die on the job because it's too much strain to do full time when you're old. It's such a waste of human resources and as a society, we just can't afford to squander all this talent. I'm always amazed by how sanguine people are about it, it's such a waste of money.

Flexibility is a two way thing. Ive been approached in the last few weeks by a pregnant colleague who wanted to open discussion about returning 3 days per week. So far so good. She's a good teacher, and I wouldn't want to lose her. However, in the next breath, shes telling me that two of her work days have GOT to be monday and Tuesday because her mother is available to provide free childcare (excuse me, 'GOT to'?? Who is in h charge here, the employer or the emloyee?) then she tells me in all seriousness that she needs weds off as she couldn't possibly work 3 days in a row.... Sorry but thats not flexibility, thats taking the Piss. Now, I'm not saying all women are like this - but it's an attitude i've seen before. No doubt if this woman doesn't get what she wants she'll be bleating about discrimination. There is often more than one side to things. Many women don't WANT the responsibilities after having children that they previously had. Its therefore disingenuous to claim that they should have equal rewards

Why are you so angry about your colleague stating her negotiating position so clearly, violethill? I think that is laudable, personally - your colleague has worked out exactly what she is able to do and has communicated it very clearly to you. Up to you to take it or leave it.

Well, your colleague won't be bleating about discrimination, she'll just be not working for you, which is her choice. The two male directors where I work have plenty of terms and conditions, such as having Thursays off to go sailing (yes, really). To me, the person is stating what they would like to do in an ideal world, if it doesn't suit, tell them and they can then either bugger off or change their arrangements. If you ask for an open discussion, you can't be upset when people openly tell you what would work best for them! It's then your perogative to tell them whether that's possible.

I'm not remotely angry- just rather bemused that a professional can approach an open discussion with absolutely inflexibility, and seemingly no concept of the impact on colleagues and students if the school were to offer it! (the complexities of timetabling at A level and GCSE would mean the students would get a very raw deal in terms of the balance of their provision)

Yes, of course she can take it or leave it- but I'm not so naive as to imagine some people don't subsequently go off and whinge and cry discrimination when they have made a choice!

"whinge and cry discrimination when they have made a choice"

This is simply anti-woman rhetoric.

We don't make choices in circumstances of our own choosing.

Your examples have nothing to do with the thread, this is about whether SAHMs might regret the choice they made to be a SAHM, and I'm questioning why our society is organised so that that is a real fear - women should be able to be a SAHM for a number of years, without being condemned to poverty in their old age. Because being a SAHM isn't a skive, it's a valid occupation. I just think that if the workplace were more flexible, fewer women would actually choose to be SAHMs for as long as they do, because most women want access to all bits of the world - the home, the workplace, the children, the voluntary work - and men too. People don't want their whole lives to be defined by only one thing, they want to function as full human beings. And the workplace and society isn't delivering that at the moment and every time it is suggested that they should, there's a chorus of horror at the thought that we might actually organise our society to fit in with the needs of human beings, instead of the other way around.

No Anti women rhetoric here - sorry to disappoint!

Yes it is. Whingeing and crying discrimination is anti-woman rhetoric.

It doesn't matter if you say it isn't, it is.

It implies that women who are forced out of jobs because of the systemic sexism of the workplace, are simply whingeing and it ignores the structural sexism of society and it also ignores the fact that most sexism in the workplace goes unremarked and remarkably unwhinged about actually and so is allowed to carry on. It's harks back to the expression "cry rape", which I'm sure you're aware of Violet. It is therefore anti-woman rhetoric.

HTH.

Sorry, the HTH was unnecessarily sarcastic.

Perhaps envious and bitter, rather than angry, then.

It sounds to me as if the woman in question was being the consummate professional, stating her negotiating position with absolute clarity; you, on the other hand, sound as if you cannot bear her being entirely subordinate to your timetabling issues (or to you, perhaps).

not being

violethill - I dont understand your issue wit your employee?

If you think about it she will be far more flexible because her mother will be minding her child when the child is sick. So no emergency days off.

If she uses a nursery or childminder she will still have to request set days. she will alos have to use emergency leave to cover sickness and will have to run out the door to get back to collect them on time.

If on the other hand you are not sympathetic to her situation and she is unable to return to work as a result that could be construed as constructive dismissal and sexual discrimination.

The trouble is some of the necessary legislation is there but it is so expensive,time consuming and stressful that many people feel it is easier to withdraw labour by changing jobs/ leaving work.

Its the path of least resistance especially when combined wiht pregnancy/ new motherhood.
However the employer who has invested in training and developing that employee also loses financially and in terms of experience.
So how is that good?

The situation many women with children find themselves in strikes me as a lose/lose scenario for both employer and employee.

VH from all you have written here it sounds like you are the one being inflexible and unreasonable. You are expecting your colleague to put your school needs before her own child the single most important person in her world probably!

It is not structural sexism for an employer to choose an employee with more flexible work arrangements than the returning employee violethill describes, all things being equal.

It is not structural sexism for an employee to choose a candidate with little or outdated skills who is prepared to accept lower pay than a returner who is not prepared to take a deeper pay cut.

You don't need a patriarchal society to set this up. It is just common sense.

I find a lot of women who have taken time out but wanting to return to work putting down inflexible conditions such as working hours (the mythical 10-2, term time only job so no need for childcare) or not being prepared to take a serious pay cut to even entry level. Of course they are going to find difficulty especially in this market.

I am over 40, and recently took a pay cut and ft job to enter a new growing field which could sustain me for a good part of the next 25 years of my working life. I hardly got any credit for my previous work experience and workplace (forget family) skills. But in 2 years or shorter I will have re-invented myself enough to find another job that WILL give me that salary credit and pt hours.

Do I cry structural sexism? Of course not, it is just the way the employment market for skilled jobs works. Any man would be expected to do the same.

On the other hand, to expect an employer to take me on at the same pay on pt terms over someone who is prepared to make my compromises is Positive Discrimination, which is discrimination writ large.

LOL at "all things being equal"

That'll be the day.

And it is structural sexism, that most jobs have such inflexible work hours. Some jobs do need to be inflexible - you need to be there at a certain time, if you have meetings etc. - but the bulk of jobs simply don't need to have the set in stone hours they have at the moment.

Also I ahve to disagree with you on "Any man would be expected to do the same". You can bet your life that if men did most of the childcare, the workplace would have been designed to fit childcare and work in seamlessly.

Which is why the extension of paternity rights is so important and the granting of flexible working rights to fathers as well as mothers. Or to anyone with caring responsibilities for that matter.

granma: "You are expecting your colleague to put your school needs before her own child the single most important person in her world probably!"

I am not sure what to make of this statement. I am sure VH is not expecting the teacher to prioritise work over her child. Just to give some thought as to how she could make these arrangements work for her employer as well. It is a standard question in flex working applications anyway.

Blueshoes if you have found a job that will enable you to get back on career track as if you hadn't had chldren and give you the same standard of living in your old age that you would have had if you had not had children adn/ or had been a man, that is brilliant.

But it's too unusual. It should be the norm.

"Do I cry structural sexism? Of course not, it is just the way the employment market for skilled jobs works"

LOLOLOL. That's what I mean about most sexism in the wrokplace going unchallenged and unnoticed. Of course it's the way the employment market works - because men tend not to take time out. It wouldn't be the way it was organised, if they did.

The problem is that although you are back on track, most returnign SAHMs go back taking a pay cut, skills level cut etc., in good faith, thinking that it's all fair becuase "that's just how it is" (Why is that how it is then?) and then find that they are stuck at that low level for the next 25 years until retirement. They are not allowed to progress up the career ladder, because whether you are willing to recognise it or not, structural sexism exists.

The figures speak for themselves. Women are poorer in their old age than men are. This is partly because women have children and partly just because they are paid less becuase they are women (childless women also have a pay gap and it's not because their average skills level or commitment is lower).

So what do we do about it? Accept that because we are women, we are destined to be poorer than men all our lives?

The inequality starts and finishes with the biological fact that only women can bear children. We are already working from a disadvantage.

It's a nice idea that technically, men can take over the moment the baby has arrived and take paternity leave for up to 12 months whilst the baby bearer gets back to work as soon as medically fit, but realistically, the historic structure of the workplace is geared in favour of men because until relatively recently, anything upscale of menial work was largely male dominated. Attitudes are not going to be undone in a matter of a few short years. Even the pay structure is geared in favour of men with men being paid more for the same roles than women. Most men are still the breadwinner in the family and it makes sense for the one who earns the most to be working be that man or woman, but usually man.

What bugs me is that I think most male manager who harbour annoyance about female staff producing babies, are hypocrital. A sort of "not in my back yard" approach. What I mean by this is that a lot of managers, male and female, who don't like the idea of their female staff going on maternity, may have their own families whom they enjoy, so they appreciate what it is to have children but don't like the idea of female staff going off to do what they themselves or their wives/girlfriends have done in order to produce their own children. How is that fair? All these employers who don't like women of child-bearing age, do none of them have families? And if they do, why the prejudice?

As a matter of interest, I imagine far more women than men are spending their Sunday arguing about this issue online, because overall, society is that (largely) men don't have to care about this issue. They don't get pregnant, they don't have to worry about telling work they are pregnant, worry about not being promoted or hired because they might have/have had a baby or have a child to care for. Which brings me back to my first point.

I feel extremely sorry for your employee VH. You seem to be offended by her making her wishes clear at the initial negotiating phase of flexible working. IME too many employees seem to expect women returning to work to be grateful for what they can get.
I agree with granma, your priorities change hugey after having a baby and a good employer would want to work with her/ his employee to come to a agreement which best suits all.

Bitter and envious lol er nope, if I wanted to work part time I'd do it, but am very happy in my current position!
Dearie me, some women on this thread really aren't doing their gender any favours.

As you were