..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

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

No, I was talking to another poster.

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

Of course it isn't egalitarian. Are you honestly telling me you've never met a mother (much more rarely a father) who has said they'd love to go back to work, at least part-time, but can't do so due to the cost of childcare?

The availability of good, low-cost childcare means that women are free to pursue their careers

I don’t want a career, I want to be at home with my baby. Nothing wrong with that?

And I’m better suited to that role than my DH. He’s the career-oriented one. Nothing to do with gender stereotypes, just character differences. I’m more patient, for example. I don’t want to be expected to work outside the home to prove that I’m not adhering to some sort of stereotype. We’re just organising our life in the way we think best. Other people can do their own thing, that’s entirely up to them!

Yes, we're typically financially vulnerable...women the world over are. It's doubtful, as a situation, to change any time soon.

But you’re not going out to work to pay for someone else to look after your child. You are going to work for myriad reasons... to pay the bills, to contribute to society by using the skills you have, for the social aspects, the pension provision ... And if you don’t want to work and have a partner who is happy to work enough hours and at a high enough rate to support you- fine. Don’t work! Not a single poster has suggested all parents should be forced to return to full time work straight after maternity leave. Of course there is room for individual choice. But let’s not pretend that there isn’t a huge issue of inequality that is far greater than whether individuals decide to stay at home.
And these people who are saying women are ‘better’ at home making, child care etc- who says? I’m genuinely confused about that one. I wasn’t born knowing how to change a nappy or cook dinner. I learned those skills and have a dh who was equally capable at them. Likewise I’m as capable of getting qualifications, learning skills and earning money.

Well if you want to talk about generalisations only, there are some things that women gravitate to more GENERALLY speaking. Yes there are societal pressures, we all know that, but go a step further and ask WHY the societal pressures are such as they are. No doubt you will have a clear answer to that, “the patriarchy” and you wouldn’t be wrong. But I think it goes deeper and is more nuanced than that. Society is a manifestation of human instinct and women’s instinct is to rear their DC. I refuse to see women as inevitable victims, all the time. Women have agency too. We just don’t all want the same things and society is complex.

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

No - Me and My DH go to work because we love our jobs and we just happen to need childcare in order to carry on pursuing our careers.

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

Really? Can you actually say that with a straight face? No, you're wrong. Society has told you that's the case but it is not true. You'll be saying women are better at housework next.

I don’t want a career, I want to be at home with my baby. Nothing wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with it until your husband loses his job/becomes ill/dumps you. Of course you will say none of this could never ever happen to you and hopefully - probably - it won't. But the fact is that making yourself and your children so dependent on one person is very risky. That's a risk you've chosen to take, I accept, but the point of this thread is not to discuss individual cases but look at the overall social and economic impact of so many women being economically unproductive (through 'choice' or not).

I don’t want to be expected to work outside the home to prove that I’m not adhering to some sort of stereotype.

Likewise, I don't think women should be expected to stay at home due to the gender stereotype you offered a few posts ago.

Working women are usually dependent on their partners too, as are working men. Very few households could survive solely on half the income they have.

Society is a manifestation of human instinct

Actually, precisely the opposite is true.

Society is about controlling human instinct. Institutions which are at the basis of society - such as marriage, the law, religion, education etc - are without exception aimed at encouraging people to work against the 'dog eat dog' set-up which would be the norm if we were to follow our 'instincts'.

I am better at housework, since you mention it!

I’m obviously not on the same wavelength as you.

I don’t want a career, I want to be at home with my baby. Nothing wrong with that?

So did I, that's why I took about 18 months off with the first, and my husband took 2 years off with the second so they got almost to pre-school without a huge amount of other care. By splitting the pain of being out of the workplace, we both took the hit/paid the penalty but didn't scupper anyone's working prospects long-term.

Babies don't stay babies so it's kind of a moot point. I agree it should be possible to have some time as a carer without completely scuppering your career. I'd also like 4 day weeks for both men and women to be more normal. However, what I'd advise my female children to do in the current situation is cling onto their career whatever happens. 'Whatever happens' has happened to so many of my friends and relatives I'd never advise anything else, except for the one person I know who has an extremely wealthy husband who has provided for her retirement already.

Frankly if you were happily married
To someone in secure and well paid work, who had made provision for you, insurance, paid into a pension for you, etc, why would you want to work if you didn’t want to? I have friends my age, 54, who have never really worked since having children. They are happy, well provided for and have no wish to work. Whose business is it that they don’t? Paid work is held up as some moral obligation on MN.

Yes!

Clearly not! Worryingly......

If you are better at housework it is because you have taught yourself to be and have chosen to take on that role....its certainly not genetic!

there are some things that women gravitate to more GENERALLY speaking

Stop making stuff up and actually post some reputable scientific studies to back up this crap.

Why worryingly?

Please don’t patronise me - I’m an intelligent person. I’m just different to you. I want different things. And I’m happy! So why are you worried?

there are some things that women gravitate to more GENERALLY speaking

I (for one!) agree...

Please don’t patronise me - I’m an intelligent person. I’m just different to you. I want different things. And I’m happy! So why are you worried?

You've used the word 'I' 4 times in that short post.

Do you honestly not get that we're not here to discuss your personal joy in washing dishes? This is about the general implications for society when so many women are economically inactive. We get that you love being a housewife. We do.

See how patronising you are?

If so many women are economically inactive - so what. Who cares. Encourage men and women to do whatever the hell makes them happy and leave them to get on with it.

I'm not questioning your choices - do whatever makes you happy. Hopefully you've factored in your future financial security when making these choices though?

I am worried that in 2018 a self professed educated woman actually believes that women are genetically predisposed to prefer, and perform better at, childcare and housework. That is simply not true. Do you have daughters? Will you be teaching them these lies? If this is what you based you decisions on then unfortunately you've not made an informed decision.

Those saying "Women are free to be ambitious" at the beginning of the thread, what do you mean by "ambitious"?

I think you'll find it means very different things to different people, as does "success".

women are genetically predisposed to prefer, and perform better at, childcare and housework

I never said either, and so won’t be teaching my daughters lies, no.

If so many women are economically inactive - so what. Who cares.

Not you, evidently. I mean, you're OK aren't you, baking cakes while waiting for high-earning hubby comes home. For now, at any rate.

However, some of us are in fact capable - despite being mere women - of looking at the bigger picture, and thinking about the implications of so many women making themselves dependent on a man. But hey... whatever makes you happy, eh?

Some women are economically inactive through choice - fair play to them if they're happy, financially secure and not relying on benefits.

However,there are a large number of women who are not working and it isn't entirely their choice. Structural factors such as the high cost of childcare, the gender pay gap and societal expectations and values (to name a few) effect these choices and they disproportionately impact women.
This isn't about individual choices - its about challenging societal norms to eradicate inequality.

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

So what did you mean this phrase IAte?

Not you, evidently. I mean, you're OK aren't you, baking cakes while waiting for high-earning hubby comes home. For now, at any rate.

There you go! Nasty, vituperative, patronising and condescending, all in one! Well done!

In what contempt you hold other people’s choices!