To wonder how many hours you...

[SmileEachDay]

Have been on the go.

It occurred to me at about 6pm, whilst cooking dinner for me and DC that I hadn’t stopped since my alarm went off at 6am. And that I still had bedtime and a hour or so’s work to do.

It’s not a complaint - more a slightly shocked observation. Particularly as that’s the norm M-F.....

@vulpine I wish we could - but I work full time and the commute is 1 hour in the rush hour each way (20mins non rush hour) so we leave the house at 8am to start work at 9am. Work till 5 / 5.30 on a good day and even then I am often the 1st to leave. May have to stop for milk on the way home (do main shop at the weekend) so home between 6 / 6.30.

Then cook, clean up after cooking, sort laundry and clean clothes, feed the pets, cajole dc to do homework etc

I do the bare minimum of housework during the week and there is a big backlog to catch up on at the weekends which I hate. I wash and dry and fold laundry but end up with a massive pile of it on the dresser in our room until I can sort it out on Saturday etc

I am not sure where I can cut back / corners more mon-fri to be honest. I cook a lot of meals that can cover 2 days.

When women started going out to work, and the government started accessing the cost of living, mortgages, rents, etc on TWO incomes, is when it all went wrong. Now most of us need two incomes just to survive, whereas before one wage was (just) adequate. Consequently women are now run ragged on a daily basis, their work load practically double that of their maternal forebears. It’s like they wanted to punish us for not being content to stay at home.

When women started going out to work

When was that, then?

Working class women (and some middle class women, too) have always 'gone out to work'.

Alarm off at 6am, don't stop until about 11pm, sometimes later if I have to work later. I don't even have kids and I expense my dinners. No wonder i'm exhausted...

Sarah no they haven’t, in the war years yes, but as a child growing up in the fifties the majority of women stayed at home. I didn’t know any women where we lived who worked. When are you thinking of?

It was in the 1960s when women entered the work force in large numbers. Surprised you had to ask me, just thought that was common knowledge.

No, they really didn't.

Women in working class households had jobs, including after marriage.

What has changed more recently is that now middle class women tend to have jobs too. Think about pop history like Call the Midwife or Made in Dagenham or whatever. It's reflecting the sorts of jobs women did - lots of factory work, for example.

(Incidentally, my grandmother, who grew up working class and married 'up' worked throughout her life. She was a teacher in the 1950s and she didn't have to give up her job after marriage, which would have been the case had she started slightly earlier.)

It's a common misperception, not common knowledge.

I’m talking about in big numbers. It wasn’t till the 60s 70s when women in the workforce shot up. That’s fact.

So what?

Now you are changing your argument to suit your facts.

I merely pointed out that working class women have always worked. This is true.

I also explained that what's changed is middle class women also going into employment in larger numbers.

You've accepted the point then pretended it was your own!

I'm up at 5am, working 7 to 1930 (often 8pm), then home, shower, eat, ironing, washing etc until 2200, then get to bed (asleep in 5 mins ).

That is a fairly standard day for me.

Up at 7, get everyone ready. Usually have a 10min sit 7.30-7.40. Drop dc at breakfast club for 8. Commuting/working til 6. Have a 30min break for lunch in that. 6-7 housework/time with kids as needed. 7-7
30 cook dinner (dh does bedtimes) . 7.30-8.30 Dinner and tv. 8.30-9 housework if needed. 9-9.30 shower and chill. 9.30 bed and read mumsnet asleep around 10.30.

I’m not changing any argument. How the hell have you worked that out. Most people would have known what I meant.Obviously some women have always worked. I’m talking about in significant enough numbers enough to change government policy......the whole point of my comment. You saying “so what” sounds like you know I was making an accurate point.

Ok then, whatever you say.

People do like to forget about working class women when they're peddling the revisionist history line.

It was quite clear that the point I was making was about government policy regarding accessing incomes, when huge numbers of women joined the workforce in the late 6os 70s. I really don’t think there’s was any need for your pedantry over working class women. You knew the point I was making but just had to argue the finer points. Fine, hope that’s it?

No, not being a mind reader, I didn't know the point you were making.

And given the way you twisted your argument around, I suspect you are being wise after the fact.

I'm up at 6.30 getting us all ready.

My day doesn't usually end until eldest stops all his "Mammyyy" and is in bed at 10.

I'm on the verge of a breakdown and my parents came round today and are acting really concerned. I think they've noticed I can't cope with it much longer. I physically hurt all over.

God, that wasn't my normal even when the kids were young children!!
Our alarm was set for 7,45am when they were at primary and 7.00am when they were at secondary.
The only time that I set the alarm generally is when I'm in work for 8.00am and that's about once every two weeks!

7am to 9pm is normal for me Mon to Fri. I normally get an hour with dp before bed.

Sarahandquack Given that the thread was about the hours women worked in a day, and given that most have very long days, you don’t have to be a mind reader to see that my post was relevant to that, as in the necessity to now have to work compared to years ago......what on earth else could I have meant.....and I haven’t twisted my argument at all. What on earth is your grief, sounds like you just love arguing. Please go away and argue over something meaningful.

Blimey, rude much?

It may be news to you, but you can't actually order people not to disagree with you. I think it's important to consider how women's working lives have or haven't changed, and I responded to your post because it seemed to me you were making a false claim. I still think, TBH, that you came out with a generalisation and then didn't like being caught out. I'm sorry if it's wounded your pride or something, but ... this is a public forum. People will sometimes point out the errors in your argument. You sort of have to put up with that if you want to get involved in the conversation.

I'm sorry but the rudeness started with you. Not only that but you've railroaded the discussion in your eagerness to pick apart my post. I'll say again, it was obvious the point I was making, it was all about how hard women's lives are now compared to years ago. This isn't the thread to give us history lessons in working class women's lives and their place in the work force. I didn't side track from what I obviously meant....only a pedantic would think so. Let's leave it at that please, I don't wish to converse with you.

Um ... did you know you're under the wrong name?

You don't need to say 'sorry but'.

It was a point that could have been minor - if you're no longer bothered about it, that's fine - but you need to stop engaging if you don't want to engage. I am quite happy posting, and don't appreciate being ordered not to talk by someone with delusions of their own importance.

Ok you want the last word, Bye.

And, my lord, the arrogance of saying women's lives in 2020 are so much harder than those of working class women in the 1950s!

I know this thread is a space for people to share how hard they are working, and believe me, I see the value of that. It is bloody hard parenting and working, and I think the OP is doing a good thing by making a place to talk about what's normal so people can figure out where they stand.

But honestly, comparing it to women's lives in the 1950s and saying we have it hard? Just, no.