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?

You clearly live in a world where all men are nice and where controlling and abusive relationships don't exist

You cannot tell me that the position of women in the workplace, as described by the OP, is the result of women being in controlling and abusive relationships. You cannot tell me that the reason hardly any women take up shared parental leave is because their partners are abusing them and forcing them to stay at home.

The OP is not describing an abusive relationship. I'm aware that some women are in relationships where their choices are removed from them, but we are talking about choices being influenced by society, not individual decisions being made under duress. You seem to be trying to shoe-horn an entirely different subject to prove your point.

Let me be clear - I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with women choosing to sacrifice (or downsize) their careers because they want to take a full year's maternity leave and then assume the role of main carer in the household. But they need to understand that's a choice they've made, and until women stop making those choices, they can't expect the overall position of women to improve in the workplace.

It's a choice to take maternity leave. The alternative being what exactly?

Men want children too.

Honestly the "don't reproduce" bandwagon is so irritating. No children is not a solution to structural inequality.

Women should not be forced to behave like men. Can you not see that your "no kids / no mat leave" argument is telling women "be a man".

You're missing the point that work norms are damaging to everyone. For example, bringing in a 4 day work week for everyone could solve a ton of issues. Both parents can spend more time with children, and more jobs to go around. Plus the MH benefits of more time to pursue hobbies or even cook more nutritious meals.

The point I'm making is that the argument should be "this sucks, how can we make this better for everyone" not "these people are being chewed up and spat out by the system, it's their own fault, they didn't try hard enough".

Lol at being told men will happily step up and do more just because we ask or even demand it. Get real.

Lol also at the idea that women choose to take mat leave etc . There are a few teeny tiny physical changes that having and raising a baby bring, you know? Biology lesson anyone?

Lol finally too at the system that lets men off ie the joke of a CSA, when they choose not to bother paying maintenance for the kids they sire.

Bullshit that it doesn't effect women more than men. Of course it does. It'll be women giving up their jobs to deal with the shit show which is blended learning.

It's a choice to take maternity leave. The alternative being what exactly?

As I have said, it's a choice to take a full year's maternity leave. Anyone can split their maternity leave 50/50 with the father so both are equally impacted.

Lol at being told men will happily step up and do more just because we ask or even demand it. Get real.

Well, perhaps think about the sort of man you choose to settle down with. Find one who will happily step up. Leaving aside the cases of abuse/forced marriage with which some are trying to divert the thread, you can't blame society if you've chosen to throw in your lot with a man who won't 'step up' or 'do more'. Accepting this with a "lol" is simply enabling undesirable stereotypical behaviour.

Women should not be forced to behave like men. Can you not see that your "no kids / no mat leave" argument is telling women "be a man"

What nonsense. It takes two people to produce a baby. It isn't 'behaving like a man' to choose not to have children - that comment is actually rather offensive.

And at no point have I said 'no mat leave'. I've said that women should utilise shared parental leave, i.e. splitting it with partner. Hardly any do. They want the time with their baby - and/or they want the benefit of their partner's higher income if applicable - and that's fair enough but it is a choice.

To think the future for women in the workplace is looking pretty bleak at the moment

No different to a lot of men
it's up to you as a couple to work out your childcare situation, nothing to do with the workplace, I hope you'd demand equality in all aspects of your relationship, not just the ability to be able to work/ career.

Pelleas

It falls on deaf ears I'm afraid.
The entitled generation, it's always somebody else job to care for their kids and societies fault they can't find a decent man, not their own

Women more likely to lose their jobs, are taking a greater burden of childcare and household chores, and lose a greater percentage of their already lower wages than men https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-childcare-homeschooling-women-lockdown-gender-a9512866.html

You have a childcare/school/employer problem OP.

My Y6 goes back to school FT on 1st June, they hope to get my Y3 back FT at some point before the end of term. They will both be back FT in September.

My employer is in no rush for anyone to head back to the office, we may well continue WFH until Oct/Nov as we’ve just delivered the best April on record, despite us all juggling WFH with homeschooling.

I’ve just been awarded a place on a fast track senior leadership programme and handed a 20% pay rise.

it's up to you as a couple to work out your childcare situation, nothing to do with the workplace, I hope you'd demand equality in all aspects of your relationship, not just the ability to be able to work/ career

Haha yeah if only it was as simple as that. You're forgetting that men in general earn more than women. So for us if one of us HAD TO give up work, it would make more financial sense for it to be me. That's not me being treated unequal by my other half that's society.

They will both be back FT in September

How do you know that?

Bullshit that it doesn't effect women more than men. Of course it does. It'll be women giving up their jobs to deal with the shit show which is blended learning.

I take offence to that.
This is affecting all manner of people, male and female, in all sorts of industries. 'Of course it does' is utter twaddle, and nobody can say with any certainty who will be affected the most, not that it matters either as I do not believe job losses will necessarily be discriminatory on a gender basis.

When an airline fails, and lays of (say) 3000 women, and 1000 men, also there is an aircraft industry that might lay off (say) 3000 men, and 1000 women...

It's so difficult to predict who will suffer, other than to say many will. Male and female, young and old.

For every female dominate trade that might suffer, there's a male dominated trade that will suffer too (and vice versa). My own company has office staff (50% female) who are all able to work from home, but our engineers (100% male) are furloughed on reduced pay with about 40% of them likely to be made redundant.

In this specific instance women will fare better than men, but I don't see that as discriminatory towards men. I just think it's incredibly sad for all.

'scuse damn autocorrect!

@Pelleas I'm in agreement with you

You're forgetting that men in general earn more than women. So for us if one of us HAD TO give up work, it would make more financial sense for it to be me. That's not me being treated unequal by my other half that's society.

That will never change while you just sit back and accept it. 'More financial sense' - yes, absolutely, if you are happy putting the lifestyle afforded by your partner's higher income ahead of any desire for greater equality - but that is a choice. Your income is only ever going to fall further and further behind while you sit back and accept a role as main carer/housekeeper.

Take offence it doesn't mean it's not true. Yes men will get made redundant too I haven't said they won't. In some industries men will fare worse then women im sure. In general I still believe women will come off worse from this.

Because of blended learning (if it happens) a lot of women will end up giving up work or going part time or taking a lower paid job that offers more flexibility. Perhaps in your world it'll be all the men you know that do all those things but in mine it'll be women.

That will never change while you just sit back and accept it. 'More financial sense' - yes, absolutely, if you are happy putting the lifestyle afforded by your partner's higher income ahead of any desire for greater equality - but that is a choice. Your income is only ever going to fall further and further behind while you sit back and accept a role as main carer/housekeeper

Wow. Would I be happy about it? No. But if it was the only way to keep a roof over my child's head I'd do it. I'd question any mother who didnt tbh.
I've never said id sit back and accept a role as a housekeeper though and it's fucking rude of you to assume I would.

In my circle of friends and acquaintances it does tend to be the woman who earns less and does bulk of the childcare so I think they'd be most impacted. But also their family finances won't be impacted too much as long as the man keeps his job. I don't know why things end like that though, most of my friends are well educated and had good career paths until they had kids.

I do agree that some women make career decisions that don't benefit them in the longer term, however many of us try to maintain our careers but still end up worse off because of the behaviour of individual men and the structural inequalities in education and the workplace that we're not able to significantly influence.

My LOLing is black humour. Of course I don’t “accept it”. I’m just realistic. Obviously I’d prefer it not to be so but I have eyes and I see how the world works.

Lots of blaming women for things outwith their control on this thread - “make him [do his share]” , “make sure....[you keep your job]” etc etc. I’ve seen how the women who went part time after kids and/or had nannies in my office were regarded . I heard how the bosses talked about them when they weren’t there. (I didn’t have kids at the time so I was deemed safe to be privy to these comments, I presume). Anyone who expressed any interest in not working full time was immediately accorded zero respect in what was a very old fashioned workplace - no point in trying to keep your senior career going in there unless you had either no kids or someone else full time at home available to cover pickups etc because there was no chance of walking out of that office in time if senior businesspeople wanted you to stay.

But if it was the only way to keep a roof over my child's head I'd do it.

Again, these are choices. You are saying you would be, if not 'happy', prepared to start a family on the basis that this is only affordable because your partner earns more than you do. While women are prepared to accept the stereotype of the man being the main breadwinner who provides for the family, and go ahead and start a family on the basis of their partner's income, not their own, that will never change.

I've never said id sit back and accept a role as a housekeeper though and it's fucking rude of you to assume I would

I said main carer/housekeeper, and when you say you would give up work if you "HAD" to - like it or not, that is the role you are saying you'd be prepared to accept - even if this is a worst case scenario.

I wouldn't give up work unless I was forced to by illness or similar. There's absolutely no way I'd pack in my job, even if I had a husband who earned a six-figure salary.

I also think that a woman who is well qualified and out earns her partner pre children and then within a few years is working full time for only a third of his income must have made some decisions along the way which contribute to that situation- perhaps taking an extended period out of the workplace or choosing not to go for promotions while the partner did

Ironically I have had considerably less time out of the workplace than my husband. The biggest obstical he found regarding to work was the 18 months he took out of the workplace to look after our children - because he wanted to, it's longer than I've ever spent at home with them - he found that people interviewing him didn't like that.
So he started telling them that he took 18 months off to renovate a house. And was employed again swiftly.

Of course I have made choices that have affected my earning potential. But those choices, again, have to be framed against society and it's expectations (of both men and women). So did I chose to move away from a career with frequent foreign travel and standard 12hr days after I had children? Yes I absolutely did.
Was it because I didn't enjoy that? No. Did I want to do it? Yes and no. These choices are rarely made in a vacuum.

I always find it interesting that people comment on this thread that they chose not to have children. Which is a valid choice and great. if you don't want children.

But lots of people do. And only women can carry a child. So, if as a couple (or a single), if you want a child the woman has to be the one to produce it. The argument that you didn't have a child so your career is fine, is kind of besides the point when you're discussing the role of women as a part of the workforce in general. Especially since realistically regardless of your success, were a man doing your exact job. He'd probably be earning more for doing it. Which is especially fucking annoying since all the arguments used to explain why women should earn less disappear if that women hasn't got, and isn't going to have children.

Fully agree with @Pelleas

Too many women refuse to take any responsibility for the choices they make. If my husband refused to make changes to his career to share care of our children after we agreed that’s what we would do, it would quite possibly have ended our marriage. Given the choice between being a single parent and having a shit work situation as a result, or being married to a selfish sexist and having a shit work situation as a result...I’d take the former.

I’m so depressed about how many women think they have no control over their own lives and careers.

DH and I both went to a four day week after our first child was born and have remained that way ever since. One day of childcare each, three days of nursery. He works in a male dominated industry and was one of the first in his company to agree a flexible working arrangement. Several others have since followed suit over the last few years.

You might not be able to force a man to take equal responsibility for his kids but refusing to settle for one that won’t is a start. And if they say they will and then don’t, no one is forcing you to hang around.

Stop saying we don’t have choices and that society forced us into our roles. That’s frankly utter bollocks.

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?

Well, yeah, i do. I outearn my husband, so when we had kids he became the SAHP. Surely in situations like ours that's the logical choice? Having the lower earner become the sole breadwinner seems very shortsighted.