To think that a lot of us will be in trouble when we retire...

[Fleetheart]

This generation seems very unlike the previous ones in that we take out loans for everything, buy holidays on credit, kitchens on credit, new clothes etc etc. And pension schemes are getting less and less generous. And most of us don’t understand them anyway. I’ve always earned well, but have split up from partner, so still have s lot on my mortgage, no savings, and really not very much in my random pension schemes most of which are money purchase schemes and won’t pay a lot. And I know many people of my age (mid 50s) who have no pension at all. And meanwhile the govt is being less and less generous. What will become of us all?

No one is saying it’s easy snuggybuggy. We had no family around to help out so just accepted that we had to pay for all childcare and that on the occasions the babies were ill or needed appointments, we’d have to juggle things between us.

It’s not easy, but your language is very emotive... all the talk of ‘pissing off’ the boss and wrecking your career... honestly it really doesn’t need to be like that for most people. We have 3 children (one with a chronic health condition needing appointments ) but tbh once you’ve broken through that inevitable phase when they start nursery and catch every illness going, it does get easier.

Ime as a manager, what you want in a team is people who are committed and competent. If they need the occasional day off for a child’s illness, that’s far preferable to having someone in the team who’s in every day but not as hard working or efficient. I also think that a lot of new parents are very conscious of wanting to be seen pulling their weight... I know when I returned from ML I was very keen to be seen to be going the extra mile because the last thing I wanted was people thinking ‘oh she’s had a baby, she’s not going to be interested in working now.’

Of course on an individual basis there will always be some couples who do the traditional thing of the mother giving up her work and prioritising the father’s. But the more families that don’t do that, the more society will see it as the norm that fathers take time off when the kids are ill, and that mothers can chase promotions and have more senior and interesting jobs. And that can only be a good thing for society

In my case I work (or worked) in an industry that isn't flexible and management isn't great. I remember a colleague whose little girl had been seriously ill kept trying to offer to make up the hours only to get a flat "your days are your days, you can't make up time on other days", her DD was going to need more follow up appointments and she had to hand in her notice. Its not so much defeatist but realistic in some industries.

I notice what tends to be missed in these conversations is that not all jobs are careers, not all jobs offer progression and promotion or even a living wage. Not all mothers have careers.

I worry a lot about this. In theory I should be saving for a deposit to try and get a mortgage but I don’t want to miss out of having a nice life now. I am 45 so am not young. I will have an okay pension but I will have nowhere to live!

@SnuggyBuggy. The more that women push their partners to accept an equal role in parenting, the more it will be normalised. I work in finance (in IT) and know a few male colleagues who work 4 days a week. My own male line manager works from home one day a week to contribute to childcare. When DS is sick, DH and i take turns each being off with him

But again it won't be practical for all couples. That would be a huge financial hit for us. Not all jobs are equal and not all parents are in such a privileged position.

That said I would like to see more employers be open to part time working and working from home. There are still too many jobs that expect too much and probably assume that there is a SAHP picking up the slack at home.

There’s a massive dichotomy here. On one hand there’s huge financial pressure to pay off student loans, save house deposits, make pension contributions and finance childcare. On the other people want universal part time working. Am I the only person to see you can’t have it both ways?

It may not be practical for couples to share earning and caring in every single situation. But it’s a damn sight more possible nowadays than at any previous point in history. When I look at how myself and my mum friends managed to keep our careers going back in the 80s/early 90s when legislation around maternity was piss poor, and paternity rights non existent, I can’t help but feel that things should be more balanced now.

It starts on an individual basis. The more couples share earning (and, to bring it back to the OP, each contribute to their own pensions) the more couples share caring, the more normalised it becomes.

I had high hopes when shared parental leave was brought in that a lot more couples would use it - I only wish we’d had the option when we had kids. But the take up has been pitiful. And again, you hear the same old reasons - people looking at the short term and deciding it’s not cost effective, just like a lot of women say it’s not ‘worth’ returning to work because they’ll only break even after nursery costs. They ignore the long term benefits ... I’m absolutely sure that if more couples shared parental leave, for example, you’d see more women remaining in the workplace. Once you’ve returned to work, with your partner taking care of the baby for the last few months of maternity leave, you’re far more likely to remain in work, because you’ve already taken that biggest step of returning. The knock on from that is that you’re more likely to have opportunities for promotion. Meanwhile the partner has made the hugely important statement that he’s a hands on dad who isn’t afraid to take a few months out of the workplace for the benefit of his child.

It all starts on an individual basis. Of course, it’s entirely up to couples to decide, and as snuggy says there will always be some couples who choose the traditional roles. But it would be good to think that society will continue to progress away from stereotyping roles in this way.

As a mum of dd and ds (now adults) I feel strongly that they shouldn’t feel funnelled into a particular role just because of their gender. It does a disservice to everyone when people feel pressurised in that way: women often end up financially insecure, less employable and with rubbish pensions. And when you look at the rise in mental health issues among men, I don’t think it does them any favours to have the pressure of earning, often at the expense of time with their children.

It would be great to think that generations not too far in the future won’t even be having these discussions, because it will just be completely accepted that women don’t need to be financially disadvantaged and that men don’t need to feel they are the ‘lesser’ parent

I dont think anyone has suggested universal PT working Also just some flexibility.
Fair enough in some sectors ,healthcare for example shifts are set but in others a late start for one parent combined with an early finish for the other can allow for school drop offs/pick ups etc.
Sweden have one of the best family policies in the world.
Work and financial stability for families is all part of that and CC is subsidised -around £113 per month capped.
My DH asked if he could WFH on one day per week and compress his hours slightly.
He was the ONLY man who had ever asked at the time, going back a few years now.

Why was he the only man to request it? Quite possibly because most men prefer to work in a traditional way. Same reason as parental leave has such a low take up.

I think you make an interesting point @Calaerno, but not perhaps in the way you intended. The rise in mental health issues in men has coincided with the rise in expectation that they take on more parenting responsibility. Personally I put it down to job insecurity and increasing difficulty in finding worthwhile employment.

I'm guessing single dads must have their own problems with holding down the more high powered jobs unless they pay out for an au pair or nanny.

Alsohuman- I suspect the rise in mental health issues is due to various factors, not just one thing. But common sense tells me that people’s well-being - for both men and women - is very much bound up with having balance in their life. I don’t think it does men good to feel that they ‘should’ be the sole earner or that they ‘shouldn’t’ request flexible working. Neither do I think it does women good to feel they ‘should’ default to all the caring and home tasks.

And of course at the centre of this are the children, and I’m sure having parents with balance in their lives benefits them too.

I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that sexist or not, more women actually want to stay at home with their babies than men do.

I think the rise in mens MH issues can be put down to greater visibility and discussion particularly in the media.
What was hidden and probably dealt with via alcohol/self medication "down the pub" is now discussed openly in the media.

My own GF was in the pub daily after work, like clockwork and my GM would wait outside his workplace silently on payday with a rolling pin to get his wages off him before he pissed it all away.
I do agree being the sole earner is a great deal of pressure but so is being sole child carer .

I agree kate but I had ML of 14 months each time (ML/AL) and felt more than ready to return to work.
The point is a few women will feel strongly they want to SAH after this point but the rest are denied real choice .

I’m glad there was no balance when I grew up. My dad was useless domestically, the thought of being left to his tender mercies makes my blood run cold.

My dad was also pretty useless domestically, but I’ve no doubt that was in large part because it was an era when men went out and did important work earning and women stayed at home.

I’m damn sure the majority of men could shape up pretty quickly if it was expected of them. And if they couldn’t - if they’re the type of man who’s never going to be capable of cooking a meal, running the hoover round, giving the baby a bath or playing with the kids, but strangely can go out and earn a living - well, frankly that’s appalling.

I just think a rigid 50:50 in everything ideology is every bit as dogmatic as the woman's place is in the home ideology.

Surely thats due to not being involved in domestic tasks though Also ?
My experience of "no balance" was my lazy father sat on his arse demanding my worn out miserable mither tended to his every whim.
Not a great example of happy ,family life.

No, it’s because he was useless. He was brought up in a mining community with clearly defined roles, he was an RAF officer who was waited on, then he married my mum who never wanted to be anything but a housewife. He never made anything more than a cup of tea or a slice of toast in 99 years. I know for a fact he never changed a nappy.

I know that my dh and I will be fine but do worry about our 3 ac. My dd and sil have extortionate nursery fees to pay which we help with but they prevent her paying much pendion. One son pays more but is a bit careless with his money and younger son is better at saving but earns a lot less. They will all be reliant on my dh and I giving them a btl once it is fully paid for. I think we can jyst about managecthat for them proving Corbyn does not get in to prevent them benefiting. We are now beginning to consider what we can do for grandkids. We don't buybthem expensive gifts but we do pay in regular to their savings accounts. I think the earlier you start the better. I think we realise how lucky we have been with houses rising in equity and so want to help our children.

Today 11:31 SnuggyBuggy

I just think a rigid 50:50 in everything ideology is every bit as dogmatic as the woman's place is in the home ideology.

Which is why no one has suggested a couple should always work exactly the same hours as each other, earning the exact same amounts, spending the same precise amount of time on childcare and home-related tasks, sweating away to ensure you synchronise all your promotions and pay rises so that neither of you outstrip the other. No one has suggested a rigid ‘each do 50% of everything’ split.

What many of us have said is that there is a broad spectrum between the woman sacrificing her career and the rigid 50:50 which you have chosen to interpret from peoples posts.

I think there’s a very broad middle ground, which enables men and women to both have balanced lives, with neither of them having the pressure of being pigeonholed into an ‘earner’ or ‘carer’ role. It’s what many couples have aspired to for a long time, well before flexible working, shared parental leave, job shares and other initiatives were even around. My hope is that society continues to progress to see this as the norm because ultimately I think it benefits everyone. That includes the children.

Well I certainly felt criticized for not buying into it.

Snuggy you stated you had no choice previously ???

Like that stops people

Snuggy, you are clearly feeling this very personally.

On a personal level, it’s totally out of order for people to criticise what other people do.

But surely you can see the importance of these sorts of discussions on a public forum, about pensions, and financial sector and how society can progress so that future generations aren’t hampered by the inequalities that exist?

You say you had to give up work because your employer was inflexible - ie: you had no (or very little) choice. Other women often post that they feel they have no choice but to stop working because they make very little money after childcare.

The thing to remember is that whenever a woman is in this position, that’s two people who aren’t having a choice - because the partner then has no choice but to continue working full time (and in some cases will have no choice but to work overtime or chase promotions to make up the short fall.)

It’s pretty much universally accepted that a really important factor in people’s well-being is having choices, having agency over their lives. There is also a wealth of evidence that well-being is linked to having balance in your life... physical and mental stimulation, family time, a certain amount of personal ‘down time’ etc

These are the reasons why I’d prefer a society where women and men aren’t funnelled into particular roles just because of their gender. I believe it makes for a happier society where there aren’t these inequalities which exist, including financial inequalities because (again) it’s that choice word. A woman who goes into older age financially secure is going to have a lot more choices open to her, and is therefore likely to be happier.

I do wonder whether you’re actually more on the same page as this than your earlier posts suggest, because clearly you’re frustrated that you worked in an inflexible industry and didn’t have the choice to keep working and earning and therefore took the ‘hit’ that so may women end up taking.