..to be worried that 1/3 of women aren’t in employment and economically vulnerable?

[windygallows]

ONS stats (latest from 2013) state that women of working age (16-64) only 67% are in the labour market, therefore 33% of women not in employment. That’s 1/3! Moreover of the 67% working, 42% of them work part time.

So that means it breaks down like this:
Women 16-64
Not in employment – 33%
Working part time – 28%
Working full time – 39%
Total - 100%

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/alldatausedinthewomeninthelabourmarketreport

Now I know there are a million reasons for these stats from women’s role as primary childcare provider to challenges women face finding flexible working, the glass ceiling, lower paid roles for women. I get it. And many on MN will inevitably remind me about the beneficial role women obvs make outside the labour market, from voluntary work to caring. And that work is not the be all and end all. And nor am I advocating for a life of constant work either.

But what these stats mean on the most basic, practical level is that the MAJORITY of women probably cannot cover their cost of living (either they don’t have an income or a limited income through pt work) and are probably reliant on someone for their sustenance – a partner, a parent, the government, family savings, their savings. This means the majority of women are economically vulnerable. Wouldn’t you say so?

Of course there will always be anomalies to this rule - the highly paid IT consultant who will say she can survive on her part-time salary or the woman with a trust fund. But these people are outside the norm. These stats tell me that the majority of women need someone else to support them financially. It’s scary!

PS - As an aside In 1959 52.9% of women were in the labour market and it’s now 67% - not a hugely dramatic difference

Most women aren't going to be able to achieve much financial security without paid work. Which isn't the same thing as paid employment, and I know there are some posters who often comment on threads like these who work for themselves.

However, just as important is the fact that many women won't be able to achieve financial security with paid work. Or decent pension provision. With this in mind, not working much actually doesn't necessarily make a particular woman much more financially vulnerable. I think it's vitally important we recognise this, although I'd differentiate between PTing and not working at all in this respect.

The latter are much more vulnerable than the former in the event of shit hitting fans, if all else is equal, and this is true of low income women too. If your partner drops down dead or walks out one day, and it takes weeks and weeks for your UC claim to come through, 10 hours a week NMW at least pays the food bill.

I have not worked full time in 16 years and I am starting to get back to work - part time and studies. I own half the shares in our family company, so I do quite well financially - I have no regrets, I am not over involved in my kid's education - they manage their own school work quite happily. Anecdotally I know parents who both work who are obsessive about their kids education, always writing letters of complaint to the school - are they compensating for not being there - fuck knows, I'm not the one judging parent's choices. But l appreciate all the "concern" for my fragile situation.

I think you are wrong F1ame, to suggest that posters pretend concern. The Government does not pretend concern. It recognises the importance of women in the work place. The NHS does not pretend concern. Work has been shown to be good for people's mental health. There is a whole body of research that shows how important it is as a society to have women who work. No responsible government and influential public bodies can afford to stick their heads in the sand and ignore progress.

I think most of us whether we work or not just want women to make informed choices. There are a lot of threads about women with not much money and women on the divorce threads with little money so we are not inventing the fact that for some women giving up work is financially disastrous.

This whole debate is so petty and it will just go round in circles. “Better parenting” is largely subjective - it has nothing to do with whether you work or not. Equally, the fact is, having a job does not put you on some kind of moral high ground either. The whole thing is utter nonsense and laughable.

Nobody can presume to judge anyone for their lifestyle until they have walked in that woman’s shoes. Maybe if I was in the particular situation of the OP, or Mrs or whoever, I would have made the same choices as them and would think it was all great. I’m sure I would actually. But it’s irrelevant to me because that’s not my life. If you were in my particular situation, you can’t be sure what you might have done. You might think you understand, but you don’t. This is obvious, surely.

The fact that x% if women are not working or only working part-time in 2018 is only an issue if those particular women perceive it to be so. No doubt some will do, but equally others won’t - but beyond that it’s not really anyone else’s business.

So F1ame do you really think that the government,the NHS should ignore research because it is none of their business? Ultimately, interested and responsible bodies must take into account relevant research to do their best for for the future of it's people. Work is healthy, it is good for the majority of people, it is good for the majority of women, it is good for the country as a whole. It is concerning when posters try to deny this.

Mrs- I’m not saying work isn’t good for many people. You don’t need government research to tell you that. You also don’t need research to tell you that work is often bad for the mental health of some people - if they are bored, stressed or overworked. Again, it depends on the job and the individual - not blanket statements as if one size fits all. I used to work in an extremely stressful job in Child Protection and while fulfilling in many ways, I wouldn’t say it was great for my mental health or compatible with having a family of my own. It depends what you do and what motivates you.

This is such a patronising, passive aggressive thread.

Well as the OP that wasn't my intention. Women's shitty economic situation and need to rely on men for money is a huge problem that rarely gets discussed. There are a zillion posts about relationships on MN but not much about finances/economics.

Should we not talk about it or not question the status quo and just accept the old adage that 'women make the best decisions they can in their situation' ---- which isn't always the case but negates the need for policy and social change.

This thread isn’t about good parenting. There are good parents who work and good parents who don’t work.

It’s about facts. The fact that women as a whole being economically vulnerable compared with men.

It’s not about ‘Ms A’ who hasn’t worked for 20 years but has amassed money and secured a good pension, or ‘Ms B’ who has multiple shares in the family business. It’s getting a bit wearisome pointing that out.
This thread is about a real issue which is nothing to do with whether you’re a good parent or not, or whether you micro manage your child’s schooling!

Thank you Humanmao and Windygallows. I think some posters take things very personally and don't look at the whole picture.

I agree. These are facts!

Circumstances and society made me very vulnerable and i feel v lucky to have got back on my feet because it was not all effort and determination. There was was luck or chance in there too. Others in my shoes might be staring down the barrel of fifty never even getting an interview, but still judged for not working.

It is not easy. Things should change.

I agree that snipes about SAHMs trying to micro manage their DCs education, or working mums being less available for their DC is utter nonsense and detracts from the real issue at hand.

Women are more vulnerable economically in society than men. Societal expectations about women’s roles and the gender pay gap are obviously key to this problem, but I think it runs deeper than this, to be absolutely honest. I do believe women are biologically predisposed differently when it comes to children. To ignore this is to do women a disservice. Of course I can only speak for myself and not all women by any means, but I’m fairly sure I’m not the only woman who instinctively felt the way I did after I had DC. When it comes to equality, I don’t think you can ignore biological differences. Well, you can, but you will alienate a significant section of women who can’t help feeling the way they do, regardless of being told that they “should” want to feel exactly the same as men when it comes to work / life balance and the dynamic within their relationships. It’s an uncomfortable truth I think for many women, but I don’t think you can solve inequality by telling everyone that they should all want the same thing.

There is a whole body of research that shows how important it is as a society to have women who work.

There is also a whole body of research that shows women have to reconcile working full time with child care, care for the elderly and the housework due to gender inequity, and women cope with this conflict by having less children. Men don't have this conflict in most societies - they just see women working, as some one to share the bills with.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/07/is-everything-you-think-you-know-about-depression-wrong-johann-hari-lost-connections

Work does not help with mental health per se - what people need is to have some control and meaning in their lives.

People may want different things, including not to go out to work but are you really saying that people who don't want to work should be supported by the state? There are probably plenty of men, who if given the choice would rather play golf all day etc but they know they have a responsibility to provide for their families. If you truly believe in equality, are you saying that all men should work but women should not have to work because women are biologically different? Or is it different again but only for women who have wealthy partners?

Yes women feel differently after dc but they shouldnt be made to pay for it so highly.
Childcare should make it possible for women to step back in to a very modestly paid job instead of ending up cornered in to unemployment because of her own family's economics which is what happens now.

Women tend to be paid less so if their job doesnt exceed cost of childcare they bow out.

So parenthood costs mothers more than it costs fathers and society just accepts that.

I was the only one who could give birth to my dc and feed them directly from the breast. But everything else to do with raising children - feeding them, playing with them, teaching them - and everything to do with running a home, my dh is equally capable of. Just as I’m equally capable as he is of getting qualifications, skills and earning

Mrs - we all make choices within our means, men and women.

This is very true parenthood costs mothers more than it does fathers

society as a whole benefits from the production nurturing and raising of the next generation but women bear most of the cost, only women can do this amazing wonderful magical thing of growing a new Human and yet we are penalised for it
Should we not be lauded, should we not be the ones with most power and status?

Work is not the only route to good mental health, it can provide the elements which contribute to good mental health but there are other ways to get those things

Quite a few older women give up work in order to care for increasingly frail/dependent elderly relatives. And in-laws come to that - so often it's the DiL who does the lion's share, if not all of it - but that is often because the higher-earner partner has more to lose in income/pension.

Plus of course some of those women will also be providing childcare for Gdcs, because their parents both need to work to pay the mortgage/rent. So despite not 'working' many of them are permanently knackered anyway.

Should we not talk about it or not question the status quo and just accept the old adage that 'women make the best decisions they can in their situation' ---- which isn't always the case but negates the need for policy and social change.

We should. Part of that discussion also needs to focus on the people for whom the work that's available to them isn't going to stop them from being economically vulnerable, or add more than a few quid a week to their pensions. It's a misnomer to link work and financial security, not so much because of those who don't need work to supply it, but because of those who don't/wouldn't obtain it from work.

This issue is important for all of us because it’s the taxpayer who is picking up the bill.

The cost to the taxpayer of women’s unfulfilled economic potential is more than the Great Recession and brexit combined.

“only women can do this amazing wonderful magical thing of growing a new Human and yet we are penalised for it
Should we not be lauded, should we not be the ones with most power and status?”

Absolutely not, because to put it bluntly, being inseminated and pushing a baby out of your vagina is not in itself worthy of praise. What’s laudable is raising children well, to become well adjusted valuable members of society. Which can be done by mothers, fathers, adoptive parents, carers, and can be done whether they work or not

Being pregnant giving birth and breastfeeding takes a huge toll on the bodies and minds of women, getting pregnant is becoming more and more stressful because so many women have to postpone it untill fertility has declined