To think the future for women in the work place is looking pretty bleak at the moment?

[KittyRainbow]

Just that really. While I understand why certain measures are being taken to slow the spread of C19. I am struggling with how much more it is affecting me than my husband.

We both work full time, and have 3 DC (nursery, primary and early secondary age) We have always had a pretty equal approach to childcare, taking turns with sick days, appointments etc but he does earn 3 times what I do (despite me having more education and better qualifications than him)

My eldest (12) will not be going back to school until September and we have been told that it will likely be part time in school, part time learning at home.
Likewise my middle, who starts reception in September. Again we've been told it will likely be part time. My youngest attends 2 childcare settings. She is only allowed to return to one for now and neither can take her full time.

My husband is due back at work from furlough FT from June 1st. My work have been great, I am currently working FT at home and they've been very understanding so far (helps that he's been on furlough as he has been able to take the children away for conference calls etc) and have no concerns about me being lone carer from June.

BUT they've said that they will expect people to be back in the office from Sept. Most of my colleagues are men and are fine with that.

I will not be able to do that unless schools and nurseries go back FT. Almost every woman I know is in the same boat. Even my secondary age child will need input at home. There is 0 chance she will sit and do school work if she is left at home alone. The smaller two obviously need constant supervision. Husband's work cannot be done from home. Mine can but not with the children around.

AIBU to think that all of the PT school/childcare etc is going to affect women far more than men, and to think that moving forward we will see a trend towards far less women in the workplace?

Rainycloudyday don't be sorry, I've done well for myself and my family. I just wanted to mention it because there are so many posters on mn who say "leave and see how he likes 50/50 care" when they haven't a clue.

I am a real advocate of not giving up your job and financial independence though. With my second I started going back when she was 12 weeks which I hated but we needed the money, covid happened and me and my partner now are equals. My friends who went back pt when my son was small are now moaning they've been overlooked for promotion because they're women when the reality is the position is full time. My friends who have had years of unemployment through choice because they're husband earned well are moaning they've had to start at the bottom.

It's the ones who had no choice because their husbands turned out to be sexist arseholes or who are paid less than their male equals who have been affected by sexism I feel bad for.

Yes some women choose it. But equally some don't. A good example of every day sexism is when a man asserts himself he is just seen as assertive and strong. A woman is seen as aggressive.

How does this work if your partner earns twice as much as you and losing his salary means you can't pay the mortgage. Is that really someone making an actual choice?

Yes - you're choosing the lifestyle attached to the bigger salary now, rather than pursuing your own career so you'd stand a chance of being able to afford the same mortgage on your salary in the future.

The problem is though that once you're in the situation and you want a change, whether that's leaving the relationship or insisting your household income drops you've then got to weigh up the downsides of leaving the relationship, disrupting kids friendships, education, activities, moving to a "worse" area, having less financial security, having less time and freedom if you split up, possibly affecting the kids mental health or relationship with their father etc. and then the overall benefits don't seem so clear.

Yeah the "lifestyle" of being able to keep a roof over you head.

Meanwhile... Back in the real world

My friends who went back pt when my son was small are now moaning they've been overlooked for promotion because they're women when the reality is the position is full time

This is exactly the structural problem we're facing. Why do the higher jobs need to be full time? It's just a random number of hours. If more jobs were three or four days a week there would be a greater chance of equality because men or women with kids could better share out the work.

It's similar to blaming individual "choice" for slavery or unequal civil rights.

If you were writing 50 years ago, I'd agree. But since then, women have fought for and won equal rights in law and the workplace, so you cannot compare the two situations.

The problem is that everyone else has to do so at the same time otherwise that first rebel will be crushed and punished harshly - along with their family. Most will attempt to survive - and ensure the survival of their children - inside that system.

If nobody sticks their head above the parapet we will wait forever for things to change. At the moment we have freedoms enshrined in law, yet what we are hearing is excuses:

'My husband earns twice as much as me so it makes sense for him to be the earner.'
'My husband refuses to give up his job to look after our children'
'I want to spend 12 months recovering from my pregnancy'

These are choices. Too many women prefer to adopt a lifestyle based on their husband's higher salary, instead of accepting a less affluent lifestyle while they build up their own career.

Yeah the "lifestyle" of being able to keep a roof over you head.

Where are all the homeless single women, then, if you can't keep a roof over your head without a man's salary?

Why do the higher jobs need to be full time? It's just a random number of hours.

You're kidding, right? Higher jobs need to be full time because they're full time jobs! You can't have managers and execs working 2 or 3 days a week, it would be ridiculously inefficient. I think you're being willfully ignorant here, surely you understand why senior positions aren't suitable for part time roles?

TabbyStar I agree but I think we’re so far off that. I think it would be better for children if both parents could have good careers working 4 days a week but I don’t think it’s possible past a certain level. Eg

DH- v high earner job manages a v big team and often has to work weekends to keep on top of things and he’s sold his soul to a certain extent. In theory a job share could work and that might be a model that companies should consider more rather than part time per se.

Me £40k for 3 days a week so I would be a higher earner if I was full time but I’ve got a pretty good deal really. 3 days is difficult and my job is full time plus really to be most effective. I’m firmly out of promotion territory and have lost a lot of influence internally but that is the price for having more time with the children.

I also don’t think part-time has to kill a career forever. Some of the best advice I had was from a super inspirational woman that had reached the top. There were times she had done as little as 2 days per week but there were other times when her career took priority and she took the big jobs while her husband was more stable in his job.

Has your DH actually requested any sort of flexible working? Dropping to 4 days a week? Doing compressed hours?

In many of the threads on here, it seems that men are far less likely to request accommodation at work (because they perceive - probably rightly - that it will affect their career), and just assume that the woman will suck it up and do all the compromising.

Until he asks, you don't actually know if his job will be able to accommodate some of the childcare requirements.

I mean, I earned more than husband in a better job before I had children. Do people genuinely believe that my career stagnated afterward because I chose to let it? Or is it more likely that societies overall view of women as 'carers' had an effect on those choices?

What does societies overall view matter? Surely it's only the view of you and your husband that drive your choices? Why didn't your husband become the main carer if that made more financial sense?

It changes throughout children's lives too, it was easier to work full time when DD was younger, but the late primary years that I gave up my executive job and started a business, when DD was younger any childcare would do, but around age 8 she moved schools when we moved area and had some difficulty settling, and this tends to be the start of the more difficult friendship years for girls. Having her in breakfast club from 7.30 and after-school club till 6 most days would have been too much for her.

She also wanted to do gymnastics and dancing that needed me there early to take her, and also she wanted to have friends round after school.

There was no real reason my job needed to be full time, it could have been split different ways, but that's the way it works better for many men, so that's the way it is!

I'm a LP though so I've had to sort everything out pretty much myself.

Why is it only the man who is allowed to be the immoveable rock in these situations? What about she doesn't want to. What do you do?

Well at this point in this scenario he is already at work. So I guess you find yourself a job and go to work leaving the children at home alone.

And when that all goes tits up, the media will definitely blame both parents equally because realistically they both made the same choice to work and leave their children at home unattended. Right?

I don’t think you can have two parents going full pelt when children are tiny It is possible. Many parents do because they have to.

It's the law that any workplace has to provide a suitable area for breastfeeding mums to express milk - again, little take up I still bf at months but I don't have a suitable place at work. I've had to makeshift something as my enployers weren't happy with it and felt "uncomfortable discussing it as men".

Both men and women need to get used to the idea of SPL. I agree. We can't have everything all ways. This is purely annecdotal but I'm the only person out of my friends and workplace who has used SPL. I believe in equality so we split it equally.

I've had to makeshift something as my enployers weren't happy with it and felt "uncomfortable discussing it as men".

This is illegal. They are required by law to provide you with a suitable space to pump. Put your foot down.

This is exactly the structural problem we're facing. Why do the higher jobs need to be full time? It's just a random number of hours. If more jobs were three or four days a week there would be a greater chance of equality because men or women with kids could better share out the work Mine certainly does because it's managing a care facility including being on call. I wouldn't want my hours cut just because some women want to work part time. The amount of time I'd waste passing information on about staff and residents and families would be ridiculous also. Plus it wouldn't work as well in terms of continuity and confidentiality.

Put your foot down. And risk losing my job in the middle of a pandemic when there will be others who don't need provisions ready to take my place? Therefore putting the roof over my families head and the food in their bellies at risk? No. I pushed it as far as possible and I'm not revisiting to make unrealistic posters on mn happy unless their paying my bills to fight the good fight.

It definitely depends on your set up. I’m the main earner by a huge margin and not the only woman in my circle thar out earns their partner.
If nursery not open when my mat leave ends DH will go part time in his role.

But yes on the whole women are likely to be most affected but I do think this is because they have allowed it. Choosing to compromise your career as a woman after children is a choice and not one we are making as a family.

Unfortunately, if you're not willing to stick up for yourself, no one will do it for you, and nothing will change for the women who come after you.

Its also illegal for them to fire you for asking for your legal rights to be met, so if you made the request in writing its unlikely they'd be able to dismiss you for it without you having a very strong suit. I'd speak to HR if i were you, and follow up by email.

Coming back to this:

Why is it only the man who is allowed to be the immoveable rock in these situations? What about she doesn't want to. What do you do?*
*
So if she doesn't want to and wants to go back to work, then the only card left to play is "I'll leave". I think that's a pretty self defeating policy.

But the original point was this: I completely refute what @palleas is saying about this being a choice for all women. It may be in my case but it sure isn't for all women. And while I understand the point about making the sacrifice etc to establish the role of working women in society it's all rather idealistic to say you work (with small children) no matter what. There is no "one size fits all" here, some people have to have both parents work to keep a roof over their heads (not a life style choice, be it rent or mortgage). And usually it is always the woman who makes more sacrifices or is the default parents. It's not always a choice; if your other half doesn't wash the dishes you may happily leave them stacked in the sink until the cows come home and he has to do them.... if he forgets to pick the kids up from school, the other parent HAS to pick them up...

if he forgets to pick the kids up from school, the other parent HAS to pick them up..

This is another one way argument - if he forgets, not if she forgets. Posters here are continually casting the mother as the reliable fall back, the enabler of the 'if' from the father's point of view. If the mother was dead and there was no other parent, do you think 'he' would still be forgetting to pick his children up - leaving them waiting at school until Social Services came to collect them?

SomeoneElseEntirelyNow I've already said I've "stuck up for myself". I have a space now which I created with a little help from my deputy. We don't have HR. What planet do some people live on?! Not all companies are big companies with HR departments! I sorted it myself because I'm an adult. I know many people on mn don't need their jobs but I do. And I love my job and my team! My owners are up once a month and let me run things as I see fit. I'm not giving that up for a shit atmosphere when I've created something myself to solve the problem. Many women aren't able to do this and may be managed out.

I wouldn't want my hours cut just because some women want to work part time.

And this is what women are up against from men, they like full time work, it suits them, why should they give a shit that it doesn't suit many women/mothers? And then women are to blame that we have different needs.

and nothing will change for the women who come after you It's already changed because I've changed it and implemented it. And I'm very proud to be part of an all female management team in our company. I have young children and the others all have caring responsibilities (parents or spouses) and we make it work alongside our jobs.

That’s exactly what I mean - where’s the blame game for the dads who don’t step up ? Why is it always the woman’s choice, the woman’s fault, that we are dumped with being the default carer? Sometimes we are the only parents who actually do any caring. You want all those women just to stay in the office and leave their kids standing at the school gates? Or without meals or clean clothes? Telling women it’s all their choice and that they should have chosen better men is living in a fantasy world. It’s nice to think that things should be better, but they just aren’t.