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?

Personally I think it will be tough for females who have caring commitments for the next few years. Going up against someone with no caring commitments for promotion or new job is going to be tougher than before

I’m hoping that I can capitalise on this if I’m honest now that I am out of work. I do have kids but they don’t need childcare any more as both in high school and in my late 40s so won’t be having any more.

That’s the million dollar question isn’t it @terracotpot - the OP herself posted she earns 3 times less than her husband despite being better qualified. This site is full of busy and important men earning 6 figure sums and jobs meaning the wife needs to stay at home. The inequality was here long before COVID and will remain long after it’s gone

And of course in those families which crop up pretty frequently on MN with the jet setting high earner husbands, the family income is at a level where childcare could easily be afforded. In fact for the smooth running of the household, a nanny could be employed which is a lot easier than having to drop young kids at nursery early mornings. Plus a cleaner can be employed and even things like ironing can be outsourced. So actually there doesn’t need to be a wife at home to facilitate everything.

I suspect part of the issue is that if the wife is earning so much less - like the 30k/100k example upthread, she is the one feeling it’s not worth it, and that her earnings don’t make much of a difference. Which is a real pity because it’s completely ignoring the other aspects of working - personal satisfaction etc Plus if she’s doing something like nursing (which I think may have been the 30k example) then it’s probably socially a more valuable job than 6 figure dad is doing. But like I say, women can have a tendency to sell themselves short.

I’m not convinced though that in the ‘average couple’ The man earns 2 or 3 times the woman before children. I don’t believe for a moment the gap is that big. Couples are often similar levels of ability/ qualification nowadays and lots of couples meet at uni or in their first job. I earned a very similar amount to my dh when we got together

The gap comes later and I suspect it’s a slippery slope, which starts with things like not sharing parental leave, the default being the woman who stops work/ goes part time and then the pattern is set which then gradually escalates over the years. Once one career is prioritised over the other it’s very hard to turn that around. And little by little the gap widens because the woman stays part time, or doesn’t chase promotions etc.

Its a complex issue but I feel it’s important for couples to real communicate about the sort of lifestyle they want and to work together to make that happen. It’s not always easy but things will never change unless people challenge the stereotypes of earner/carer roles and embrace the fact that women and men can be both- and do it really well

Trevsadick I'm not sure if you've got mixed up but I wasn't conversing with you I wasn't trying to shut anybody up. I just felt like the poster must have been confused and therefore unwell (many medical conditions can cause confusion) or deliberately misinterpreting things. And I think it's a lower blow to call residents of care homes "inmates".

@WaterOffADucksCrack you posted on a public forum. If you want to act like a dick, expect to be called out on it.

I dont need your permission to post a response. Nor can I only respond to people who are posting directly to me.

And if you are going to act like a dick, at least own it.

That's 2 posters you have accused of being confused, perhaps the issue is actually closer to home.

I'm a huge advocate of more equal parenting but I just want to point out that you can't just opt out of prejudice against mothers by how you set your life up. DH and I did shared parental leave, share drop offs, pick ups and sick days - but I still saw the look on my boss's face when I started a new job in September and mentioned I had a one year old, I still get lots of assumptions about what I can and can't do in terms of travel for work, etc (including quite a lot of people just assuming I work part-time; I don't). Given the number of people who will admit, off-the-record, that they don't like employing women of childbearing age then even not having children can't guarantee you won't be discriminated against because you might. All of this is erased if you say that women bring it on themselves because they choose to take on the primary responsibility for children.

Trevsadick I didn't call you confused I asked if you had mixed me up with someone as I wasn't addressing you. I never said you needed my permission so you've plucked that out of nowhere. Anyway let's not derail the thread. I hope you have a lovely evening

@LisaSimpsonsbff oh I agree - we faced plenty of that when I returned to work with dc1 well over 20 years ago. I don’t think any of us are denying it exists. But I do think the onus is on couples - both partners - to challenge the attitudes that pigeonhole women and men into carers or earners. And even though it seems painfully slow at times, society is getting better in that respect. When I had my first baby paternity leave didn’t even exist It’s great that things like shared parental leave and the right to request flexible working now exist- and good on you and your dh for sharing your leave, I only wish it had been around when I had my babies

I’m not convinced though that in the ‘average couple’ The man earns 2 or 3 times the woman before children. I don’t believe for a moment the gap is that big. Couples are often similar levels of ability/ qualification nowadays and lots of couples meet at uni or in their first job

I agree with this. In my experience high earning men are attracted to high earning women - similar levels of education, interests, ambition etc. The money is there for pay for childcare yet women still choose to sacrifice their careers and I think this must be because they wanted motherhood more. We had a discussion in work around shared paternity and only one woman said she would have shared with her partner if it had been available. The rest resolutely didn't want to, across all job spectrums from skilled to less skilled.

Is it feasible to create circumstances were a woman's desire to be the prime carer in the family and still not sacrifice her career is possible?

Is it feasible to create circumstances were a woman's desire to be the prime carer in the family and still not sacrifice her career is possible?

Yes, but as with civil rights, gay rights (and even simpler matters such as wearing seat belts and not driving drunk), the state must make the first move and mandate the desired behaviour. Force majeure. Social change follows from law, then soft moral campaigning (to achieve buy in), then eventually acceptance.

The problem is that we have weak laws, not enforced and backed up with zero attempt to change underlying attitudes which appear to be worsening again. We need the same sort of effective campaigning that the black and gay communities had to rightly shame white and straight communities to come along willingly with change. Or the sort of vehicle safety adverts which shame bad behaviour and make bad behaviour something to be looked upon as backward.

Without state intervention, it would take a national strike by women. Just looking at the disagreement here, I can't see that happening. We're too indoctrunated in the present structure and vested interests aren't ready to let that go.

How would it work though @PicsInRed? Provision made for 1 child? What if a woman wanted 3 children, is it reasonable for that desire to be supported?

Yes, as someone who did do shared parental leave, I lost count of the number of women who told me that they would never have done it and were incredulous/pitying that we had (some were pretty nasty about it). Quite a few men told me they would have liked to but their partners would have been very opposed - I initially thought this was a bit self-justifying/convenient for them but I was less sure after hearing how vehemently against it nearly all the women I encountered were.

Far too simplistic to compare with seat belt legislation or gay rights. How would it actually work? Force couples to share the year long leave 50:50? You’d have absolute uproar from women saying it’s an infringement of their rights. Loads of us know from first hand experience that many women simply don’t want to share the leave. Force employers to positively discriminate in favour of women who might want to take 3 years out of the next 6 out of the workplace on Maternity leaves. Yeah right.

I’ve been involved in recruiting many people during my career and on a personal level am really keen to encourage women to get into the work place, stay in the workplace and in many cases I’ve bent over backwards to accommodate it.

However the bottom line is: someone who has kept their hand in with their career and has up to date experience and knowledge, all things being equal, is a better bet than someone who isn’t. That’s not unfair it’s just the truth. A woman who’s been out of the workplace for a length of time as a SAHM may well have developed those skills of time management, patience, budgeting etc but so will her counterpart who’s been a WOHM during that time.

When you look at the history, huge steps forward have been made over just the last 30 years. As many of us ‘oldies’ point out, when we had our babies, ML was 3 months. There was no paternity leave. Right to request flexible working didn’t exist, regulated childcare was in much shorter supply (and just as expensive relatively as now, but without the subsidies of free hours) Things have moved on in leaps and bounds but unless at grass roots level individuals make choices to equalise things as much as possible then we won’t truly reap the benefits.

When I had DC, my DH was running his own company with over 100 employees. No he wasn’t going to take months of paternity leave had it been available. So many people assume everyone works for larger companies and they can just take all the leave they want. The world for millions of self employed isn’t like this.

Subsequently DH hasn’t found his male employees want extended paternity leave. If employers are continually asked to cover for people taking extended leave for babies, you can imagine what will happen now. There are a huge number of redundancies looming after the furlough scheme ends. Employers will keep people on who are actually doing the jobs. Absence means you are dispensable if an employee has less work. Most people don’t want to make themselves less employable at the moment.

@bubblesbuddy another good point.

Ultimately there has to be a balance of what works for the employer as well as the employee. I think the balance is not bad at all: a year leave, some of which is transferable. Paternity leave. Free hours childcare at age 3 plus (2 for certain criteria) plus huge childcare subsidies for those on low wages. Right to request flex working for anyone (not just parents) Parental leave which can be taken if needed during the dust years of a child’s life. These things are rights and the more people who actively take them up the better.

I’m fully expecting to hear an onslaught now of people citing experiences of unenlightened employers etc and of course that’s awful and I’m fully in favour of name and shame if employers are trying to evade their responsibilities.

But my point remains: these things are rights and the more they’re used, the better things will become. If it becomes the norm (please god) that a man in his 30s is likely to take several months out of the workplace to care for his children in the first year of their lives, it will help to equalise things. There won’t be such likelihood of views like ‘ childless woman in her 30s, is she going to spend 2 years out of the next 4 not actually in work?’

Subsequently DH hasn’t found his male employees want extended paternity leave.
Such a shock, as he sounds like he's created such an easy atmosphere for people to use this statutory right...

If employers are continually asked to cover for people taking extended leave for babies, you can imagine what will happen now.
Does he just not employ women? If he can't deal with people using statutory rights then it's not a viable business, is it?

Lots of people expressed amazement that DH's work 'let him' do SPL; no one was amazed that my work 'let me' take maternity leave even though it was actually much more inconvenient for them because I was much more specialised and harder to cover. DH's work didn't 'let him', they just didn't break the law by refusing an employee a legal right.

@Caelano.... i agree with everything you say. And I am so, so envious. When I had my children, I did not qualify for maternity pay and leave the first time. I got 6 weeks 2nd time around.

This was over 30 years ago, and we have come a long way. But until fathers start taking paternity leave as a matter of course and mothers reject the mummy-track option, there is no chance of an equal playing field.

I'm not convinced though that in the ‘average couple’ The man earns 2 or 3 times the woman before children. I don’t believe for a moment the gap is that big. Couples are often similar levels of ability/ qualification nowadays and lots of couples meet at uni or in their first job. I earned a very similar amount to my dh when we got together

I and a lot of my friends had our kids in our late 30s/early 40s. When I stopped work with dc1, dh earned more than double my wage even though I have a better class of degree. We are the same age and at points I was the high earner (met straight after university).

@Dinosauratemydaffodils were you doing the same job as your husband at the point you stopped?

were you doing the same job as your husband at the point you stopped?

Of course not. I wouldn't have stood for the pay difference if we were. Very different fields. I worked for the local authority in the Homeless team. He works in IT. I got more job satisfaction, he gets more money. Working in the same field applies to very few couples in my experience.

I agree @Dinosauratemydaffodils but was interested to understand how the pay disparity arose. I think that class of degree is generally irrelevant to earning potential. Skill set and ambition are the drivers I think.

I've always prioritised pay over job satisfaction though have been lucky to find my work varied and interesting anyway

@dinosaur so that’s a choice isn’t it? You could have developed a career in IT but chose something which you feel gives you more job satisfaction. Which is a totally valid choice. But it doesn’t mean there’s anything inherently unfair or wrong about the situation.

And while working in the exact same field doesn’t apply to most couples, IME there’s far less of a gap than one earning double what the other earns.

Anyway, re: your own situation, I don’t know whether you’re working or not, but after having your child, presumably you had the choice to return to work or not? With your local authority job plus your dhs IT job, childcare must have been affordable from the household income?

I’m not going to make any assumption here about your own choices. But this is the point where many women decide that it’s ‘not worth their while’ working. Even though continuing in work will give them the sort of job satisfaction you describe, pension contributions, plus of course if it’s the sort of job you’re doing, it’s socially such an important thing.

But this is what I mean about women selling themselves short. Too many women just assume that their dhs job is more ‘important’ and default to him being the sole or primary breadwinner and from thereon in it’s a slippery slope to the sort of scenario you see countless times: well qualified and competent women ending up doing jobs way below what they’re capable of, and with decimated pensions.

But it doesn’t mean there’s anything inherently unfair or wrong about the situation.

I never said it was unfair. I think in my case it was a perfect storm of not needing to prioritize pay as I've always had money and having an emotionally abusive childhood that led to my choices. I wanted to help vulnerable people because that help wasn't there for me and I was exceedingly good at it. I was just pointing out that double the salary does happen and that it doesn't matter what you are earning when you meet, it's when you have kids that count.

Anyway, re: your own situation, I don’t know whether you’re working or not, but after having your child, presumably you had the choice to return to work or not? With your local authority job plus your dhs IT job, childcare must have been affordable from the household income?

I had postpartum psychosis and then a massive deterioration of my mental health. Could barely function for the first year let alone sort out anyone else's crisises. Resigned as I felt that was the fair thing to do as I had no idea when/if I'd be fit to return. Money wasn't an issue, we could have afforded childcare easily.

He's 5 now with an almost 2 year old sister. I haven't worked since although I sit on various committees including chairing one and have another year to go on another degree course I'm doing part time for "fun". I was intending applying for a social work postgraduate program but given the economic situation we're going to emerge into and the effect lockdown has had on my mental health, I'm not sure that will be possible.

@dinosaur you’ve had a really tough time; I’m sorry to hear that.

Of course, at an individual level there will be specific issues which impact on our decisions about working and other big life issues.

My point though was about a situation where money is the only difference, not health issues. Even in a situation such as you describe where the woman is earning only half of What the man is, there are options, eg: in the sort of local authority job you had, by the time you had your children you would have been on I suspect at least 22k? So your. Dh would have been on 44k. So with a combined income of 66k childcare would have been affordable. (I’m just using those figures as examples, you may have been on higher as you were late thirties/ early forties)

And that seems to be the classic scenario so common on MN where women say it’s not worth their while working and that gender divide just grows from thereon in.

I completely get why in your own situation though, you were not well enough to continue in work.