..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

*I choose to work only part time- my youngest is 18 and at University.

I love having lots of free time to myself.*

Useful comment!

I’m a SAHM and have been for over ten years. I finished university but never had a career. I’m dependent on DH, who earns well and has a good career, but we wouldn’t have been able to have the family we do with both of us working. The childcare costs would have been crippling, so there would have been no point. And I genuinely love being at home and looking after my family. I wouldn’t have wanted to put my children into childcare. And I think DH appreciates what I do - he goes out and earns, I absolutely everything else. I don’t feel vulnerable. I’m sure when my youngest is at school I’ll have to find work - it’s rather late in the day to build a career, but I won’t be unhappy about that. I was never driven in that way. I couldn’t have had both, so I’m glad I made the choice I did.

But Iate just because that traditional set up works for you, it doesn't work for everyone nor is it what every woman wants. It doesn't help the cause when you claim the status quo works for you, so that's fine.

And in your set up even if you are all happy about it, you are still economically vulnerable.

IAte You 'think' your DH appreciates what you do.....well I hope your DH shows his appreciation by ensuring you are financially secure in the long run.

And I think DH appreciates what I do - he goes out and earns, I absolutely everything else. I don’t feel vulnerable

Neither did all of those other women whose husband lost his job/became incapacited/walked out on them.

As I said before, nobody thinks it will happen to them. But it happens to women every day of the week.

Neither did all of those other women whose husband lost his job/became incapacited/walked out on them.*

Became incapacitated? What a bastard getting cancer or having a heart attack. You do realise that we have laws which protect the interests of stay at home parents don’t you? Regardless of sex.

As I said before, nobody thinks it will happen to them. But it happens to women every day of the week.

Became incapacitated? What a bastard getting cancer or having a heart attack. You do realise that we have laws which protect the interests of stay at home parents don’t you? Regardless of sex.

Who said anything about being a 'bastard'?

My point is that things change, often in unforeseeable ways. Making yourself - as an adult - and your children financially dependent on just one person is inherently risky. You just have to read MN to see that. Just because everything is fine and dandy now doesn't mean it will be 5 or even 2 years from now.

windy - I think if you were only interested in discussing women who are “economically vulnerable” you should have made this clear at the start of the thread, rather than making a statement equating “lack of an income” with being “economically vulnerable” because this is obviously far too simplistic. Then there could have been a more meaningful discussion about the wage gap, zero hours contracts or the fact that childcare costs block women returning to work, etc.

As this thread shows, there are many permeatations behind the “1/3” if non-working women in the stats you quote - some are economically vulnerable, some are not, but they are all equally real and valid, just like working women or men. Of course if you make a blanket statement about non-working women, as in this title, people in that sector will inevitably get irritated and come on and contradict your stereotype because nobody likes being told they must be this or that. It’s not enough to then retort to the genuine members of the “1/3” with, “oh your experience doesn’t matter because you don’t fit the agenda.” This is AIBU. If someone made a blanket statement about, “x% if single mums are this or that”, there would be a chorus of disagreement - quite rightly - and you couldn’t just refuse to accept their perspectives because of generalisations. Even if the generalisations are largely correct. Otherwise it’s just an echo chamber and we all know that women are disadvantaged in the workplace anyway, for all sorts of reasons, with or without headline stats.

@windygallows
What cause? I never said a traditional setup would work for everyone either? I’m not advising anyone to do anything or advocating anything. I’m just saying I’m happy with the way things are. If women want to work - fine. If they want to SAH -also fine.

IAte but one of those choices can leave a person financially vulnerable. That needs to be acknowledged.

The point is though, someone without an income, or who only commands a very low income, is likely to be more economically vulnerable than someone who does have a good income.

We can hypothesise as much as we like about women who have trust funds, rentiers etc But the hard facts are that statistically women as a group are far more financially vulnerable than men. And also, despite females doing better than males at almost every stage of education, and having access to the same careers on leaving education, as a group they end up in lower status jobs, or working part time or having years out of the workplace. And that’s the case in 2018, when it’s quite possible for women to breastfeed exclusively til weaning age, hand over a few months leave to the baby’s father and return to her job - this is protected by law. We have moved a long way in terms of legislation since I had my first baby in the 1980s and we were back at work after 12 weeks. It’s a shame that we’re still having the same debate about women’s vulnerability

It does, I’m not disputing that. It’s perfectly obvious that SAHM are economically disadvantaged. But what’s to be done? That’s just the way things are. I had to make a choice and I don’t regret it.

But we don’t live in an equal world where our choices are actual proper choices. How many men give up or curtail their potential in the workplace to look after dc? I know of one dad who went pt to look after his dc. I only know 3 mothers who work full time. If these were genuine choosy choices like what to eat off a restaurant menu, I think it would be more equal.

Realistically, how many women are married to a high earner who’s putting plenty of assets in her name? The median wage is about 25k so it’s just not happening for those millions of women who are putting everyone else first over themselves. How many men can and do walk away from a partnership and start again like it never happened? If they’d all quit work to raise dc they wouldn’t be doing it because they wouldn’t have the means to support themselves. Just like plenty of women are stuck with men they don’t really want to be with because they can’t afford not to be.

I’m not having a go - I sah mostly and have only worked pt in the mummy track since having dc but I’m also aware this has massively impacted negatively on my earning power and pension provision. I hope to rectify this as my dc get older, but whilst a chorus of voices with very different agendas are shouting that all is absolutely fine and women are all happy sah, working little pt jobs around school hours, doing housework and childcare round their dhs big, important, long hours super career, the dissenters get drowned out.

How many men give up or curtail their potential in the workplace to look after dc? I know of one dad who went pt to look after his dc. I only know 3 mothers who work full time. If these were genuine choosy choices like what to eat off a restaurant menu, I think it would be more equal.

Exactly.

The number of SAHP who are male is under 10% - and of those, many are only SAH because they can't find work. If SAH is such a 'free choice' we need to ask ourselves why almost no men freely choose it. Yes, there are social pressures etc but if enough men genuinely believed that making themselves financially dependent on another adult were a good thing, they'd quickly find a way to make it socially acceptable.

Sacrificing your own potential for power and status for the benefit of your children, that is what women are expected to do and they do it willingly because it's seen as a feminine quality

Men instinctively resist it because it conflicts with their sense of masculinity, it feels wrong and unnatural to them, it doesn't have to be this way but I'm not sure what the route to change is

if we don't change I think women will just grow more and more resentful and refuse to have families unless they can be sure that they wont unfairly bear cost of raising children

Great post goldenwonderwall.
How many women who partner these super big important career husbands really are happy to have to do all the child and home stuff, and are happy with the fact their husband probably doesn’t see much of the kids because he’s so super busy and important? Of course there will be some- life is made up of all sorts of couples. But I imagine there are far more couples who prefer to have greater balance in their individual lives and don’t want it to be all or nothing, career or carer.

it doesn't have to be this way but I'm not sure what the route to change is

I think the only way is Scandinavian style subsidised, high-quality childcare.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, this comes with the expectation that pretty much every mother who is physically capable goes out to work in order to pay into the system which in turn pays for the childcare. It also comes with Scandinavian style (ie very high) taxation.....

Of course the super important career dominated husband just reinforces in the Minds of the children the idea that men are of higher status than women
too important to invest any of their precious valuable time into their children

If I lived in Scandinavia and was looking to return to work because I needed to, or because I knew I wasn’t cut out to be a SAHM, then the subsidised childcare would be all well and good. However, if it was simply a case of the government directing that I “should” want to place my 12 month in institutional daycare, I would tell them to butt out of my personal sphere and go and jump off a cliff because the way my DH and I organise our family is personal, my child is my responsibility and we don’t live in a police state.

No disrespect, but again you seem to be forgetting that This Isn't About You.

You've already told us that you're very happy being financially dependent on a man. We get it. The question is what steps could be taken to make the workplace and life in general more egalitarian for the majority of women, and I have suggested subsidised Scandinavian style childcare as one possible solution.

I think the only way is Scandinavian style subsidised, high-quality childcare

It strikes me as strange though - everyone going out to work to pay for someone else to look after their child?

I think there’ll always be a larger proportion of women at home anyway - mothers are generally better suited to do it than fathers.

@IcedPurple

Are you talking to me? I never said it was about me

I just don’t see why it isn’t already egalitarian. We can make whatever choices we want.

There are many women who would find that kind of societal expectation restrictive Iced. You may not want accept that, but it is true. No doubt it would be an advantage to many and that’s great, but no system is perfect and that is my point.

It strikes me as strange though - everyone going out to work to pay for someone else to look after their child?

That's a fairly limited way to look at it imo. The availability of good, low-cost childcare means that women are free to pursue their careers, which will leave them in a much better position should their marriage break down (as 40% do in the UK) since they won't have to wonder how they'll survive without their husband's salary. Also, children grow up knowing that both men and women work outside the home, which will hopefully lead to a lessening of gender stereotypes.

I think there’ll always be a larger proportion of women at home anyway - mothers are generally better suited to do it than fathers.

Ah, and so now we get to the crux of the matter!

There are many women who would find that kind of societal expectation restrictive Iced.

Well, then they're free to work against it. Most Scandinavian women seem happy with it however - their socities are among the best places in the world to be women.

no system is perfect and that is my point.

Strange point though, since nobody claimed it was perfect.