..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

Yeah I don't think women have free choice. I mean I don't think many people do but women especially. It's natural that many women want to look after their newborn children.

That doesn't mean they don't want the intellectual stimulation of working with other adults or that they are happily choosing to give up their financial earnings. It's a choice based on biology for many women.

We shouldn't belittle that biological drive because where on earth would we be without it?

I agree Missillusioned, I'm putting a lot of hope in my DH doing right by our child but there is obviously no way to guarantee that.

“I have to say that a SAHM with a DH who works long hours with travel is deluded if she thinks he needs her as much as she does him.

Why do you have to say that?”

Tinsel, I can only assume some people can’t get past their own spite and bitterness and need to feel superior to everyone else. It’s a shame.

When a man with children chooses to go out to work, he very often does just that.
The woman who chooses to go out to work often also has to do all the child related work as well. It's exhausting, I'm not surprised a lot don't choose to do it. And it's surprising how many men who seemed all for equality before children, change completely afterwards. When you marry a man you don't know what kind of a father he'll be until it's too late.

Are you talking from personal experience Missilludiined?

windy

Yes, I do believe we have free choice, nobody holds a gun to our head to live a particular way. If women don't take the choice they want either because of a man or children, they can't blame society.
It isn't always perfect, some women don't work because the childcare costs would take one salary, but another woman in the same position may choose to work for the long term benefit.
Some choose to be a sahp because that's best for them and their family.

Well, anyone can change in a relationship, but most people don’t do a complete u turn after having children- provided you’ve actually talked through these important issues about caring and working.

@F1ame I have to say it because I don't think many women are aware of how badly motherhood can narrow your choices compared to fatherhood. Until it's too late.

I want women to be aware of the trap you can fall into bit by bit if you don't keep an eye on your situation. Leaving you in a much poorer position than the man in the event of a split.

Most women don't believe their husband capable of walking out on them. Sadly some are proven wrong. I want women to protect themselves.

I think as a society we also need to be more prepared to talk to our partners about what would happen in the event of a death

Most women feel quite equal at work and home, until they have children.

I don't think what Missillusioned said was mean, it is what it is. If things went south DH could easily replace me with a housekeeper and the odd prostitute. I would have a much harder time finding a man on the same salary to support me and my child.

Financially a death to a married couple with assets is often not such a problem as divorce. Most people with a salaried role and a pension scheme have a life insurance element with that.

You can also buy additional insurance and there are still some limited widows benefits available. The wife usually inherits her husband's estate, or a substantial portion thereof.

I'm not aware of any divorce insurance.

@SnuggyBuggy thanks. It wasn't meant to be mean. It was meant as a warning. It happened to me.
I did and still do work, but I'm still much poorer than him. If I didn't work, life would be extremely difficult. He sees his children eow.

Miss - I apologise in that case and take back what I said about your comment being made in spite.

I do wonder on these threads, how many SAHMs and / or non-working people, posters actually know and communicate with regularly in real life. Some if the perceptions seem so out of touch and generalised.

I could list at least 100 SAHMs off the top of my head right now. Just from one school, not mention at least half of the women I know around and about and old friends from uni. I can almost certainly say that they would all feel very uncomfortable with the “worry” being expressed about them on here and would probably ask you to direct your concern elsewhere. In all these cases of over a hundred couples, I can count the number of divorces in one hand. Now, I’m sure that someone will tell me that this is not representative of women in society and yes, I know it’s not. But it is representative of an area with a high SAHM population and the supercharged men who work extra long hours and all the rest of it. I would say in all honesty that over 90% of the men I know are decent, want to provide for their families and treat their wives with respect. That’s my perspective in that particular sector if the overall statistic.

@F1ame you'd have thought my husband decent. Everyone did. And how old are these couples? There does seem to be a point around the 40/50 mark where the men start to upgrade wives. I'm not saying this to be spiteful, it makes me very sad, but these things happen.

I don't think I know any SAHM with school age children. I did know some with children under 5. There are a few who may appear to be soley SAHM, but they are working from home or work shifts.

There are a lot of p/t working mothers though.

I suppose there is an element of gambling, if I enable DH to work his job by making mine less of a priority we get more money between us than if we both have jobs to accommodate 50/50 childcare responsiblity.

The money can be used for paying off the mortgage ASAP which will make retirement easier for both of us if we stay together.

If we don't stay together I'm worse obviously off.

I married one of the good guys. I gave up work when DC1 was born because he took on a new job in a new area which meant we had to relocate. I was a SAHM for four years. He left when DC2 was 5 months old, promising he would take care of everything and I'd never have to work. Three months later when he changed his mind, rather than a monthly income based on a £50k salary, I was relying on £358 per month. My mortgage was £300 for a house in negative equity. Within five years his salary rose to £100k+, yet maintenance stayed the same until DCs were 18.

I had to find a job that covered the bills, the childcare and the commute. He saw DCs once a month. I was constantly told how marvellous he was in maintaining a relationship with them, and how lucky I was that I got "so much" maintenance.

I have advised my DDs never to be financially dependent on anyone. It's just crazy to put yourself in such a vulnerable position.

F1 socially I know one SAHM and one SAHD. Both pretty affluent and financially secure.

Professionally, I've interviewed a large number of SAHMs varying from those undertook this role in the short term to those who never went back to work once having children or don't plan to. Generally, those from more affluent backgrounds talk about 'choice' and 'freedom' where as those from poorer backgrounds talk about 'having no choice'. They also express more concern about their financial security in the long term.
The difference.... money. Being a SAHP with money to do things, maybe outsource some household chores and not having to worry about your financial future is completely different to doing it on a very limited budget and worries about how you'd cope if the worst should happen.

My views aren't out of touch. They're more representative of society as a whole, not just some wealthy pocket of the UK.

F1 you live in an area with a high proportion of men in supercharged high paying careers who have SAH wives. So your experience isn’t representative of the majority of women.

Blah

I've always been a sahm, we are quite poor, one wage.
I don't/ have never worried about lack of money, the bills are paid and anything else is a luxury.
We enjoy being frugal and for us me being employed would have been selfish as there was no reason to leave my dc, and paying someone else to care for them wasn't a consideration for us.

Romany I was simply outlining the evidence from my extensive research. It is of course a generalisation, albeit grounded in empirical evidence. There are of course exceptions ....

F1ame - you should tell all those SAHMs to divorce their protective, kind, ambitious husbands, find the nearest 60 hours a week job and get a man who works in a supermarket 20 hours because every other woman feels so SAD for them

Hub - I have t always lived like this obviously. I didn’t even grow up in another culture. My own mum was a SAHM - she started working part-time a bit when I was about 12. We wrte practically living hand to mouth at times, but that’s how it was and we were secure.

I’m an ex- social worker too. I’ve worked in youth prisons, children’s homes, therapeutic communities and child protection. I don’t think I’m naive as to the potential pitfalls in life. I’m 45 and DH is 48. I know one lady who divorced years ago (that was because it was an arranged marriage) and two cases of friends where the DH has left for another woman. That’s out of everyone I can think of in our social circle. Both those women now have new partners and have been fine money wise, school fees covered and stayed in the home as long as they wanted. One recently emigrated back to her home country; the other still doesn’t work but she also had a serious illness (thankfully recovered now).
I think if a man is the type to have an affair, then he will if the opportunity presents itself, regardless of income, whether his wife is a SAHM or whatever. What matters is knowing how you would fare in that event. You may be working, but would it be enough? How would the assets be split? What would be your plan?

Sorry, I’m talking gobbledegook - “I did grow up in a different culture”, not didn’t even.

Got 2 disabled kids, one of which, i would be unable to find childcare for, plus he would find it too much, so don't work. Got to trust your other half, wouldn't leave you in the lurch. It is a uncomfortable feeling tho, being dependent on someone.