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?

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

No.... That is not what I said. We had a family and it was perfectly affordable because we BOTH worked. I took 9 months mat leave and went back to work. It is still affordable because we still both work FT and use FT nursery. If one of us is forced to give up work because "blended learning" we could not survive on my wage alone so it would have to be me who quit. I never started a family based on my partner's income so you assume entirely wrong.

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

Good for you. You've clearly never been in the difficult position I might find myself in in a few months. Bully for you

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.

I absolutely agree - but a woman isn't the only one who can parent a child. Legally you can return to work two weeks after giving birth if you want to. I'm not saying so quick a return is desirable, but shared parental leave means you have a choice of splitting the leave any way you like - but still, in my experience, the vast majority of women choose not to take advantage of that. You could split your mat leave 50% so neither of you was more disadvantaged - if you choose not to do that, you can't complain that your career has been negatively affected by comparison to your partner's.

You could split your mat leave 50% so neither of you was more disadvantaged

Remember that has only recently become a thing.

I think it will be very difficult for any parent who has the sole childcare responsibility

@TrustTheGeneGenie so if you have a blended home learning situation, surely the parents (you know, both of you) talk to your employers and explain that as you both have jobs the only way to work it is for you both to reduce or compress your hours for a temporary period to cover the days your child is at home. I imagine you will have reasons why this isn’t possible for your husband, but what would his employers say to him if he were a single dad?

Remember that has only recently become a thing.

As has taking a full year off for each baby.

I think whats happening isn't the problem.

Its how people had their lives set up before. They were happy with that and now it's not really working out.

If one persons career has always come second to the other one, then that person will be inmpacted more.

I was one of the people who didnt take the foot off the gas on my career. There have been downsides. Obviosuly I would have preferred to be in a less senior role, furlughed spending the last 4 weeks with the kids. Instead, I was one of the people working all hours trek g to keep the company together.

I have also been a single parent and managed my career.

It doesnr actually matter which way you do it. Theres downsides and upsides. So yes, at this point my career hasn't been impacted by the kids being home. Dps was, he was made redundant.

But my career didn't take a backseat, previous to this.

Many people are happy for their career to come second because they get more time with the kids, thats the good bit. The loss of career is the bad bit.

@TrustTheGeneGenie so if you have a blended home learning situation, surely the parents (you know, both of you) talk to your employers and explain that as you both have jobs the only way to work it is for you both to reduce or compress your hours for a temporary period to cover the days your child is at home. I imagine you will have reasons why this isn’t possible for your husband, but what would his employers say to him if he were a single dad

Well his employer will say no. Mine will probably say no as well so where does that leave us?

They'd probably tell him to find childcare.

Many people are happy for their career to come second because they get more time with the kids, thats the good bit. The loss of career is the bad bit

Neither of our careers have come second? We've both worked ft and ds goes to nursery so how do we fit in with your theory?

we could not survive on my wage alone

In that sentence you are proving what I've said - you're reliant on your partner's income. That might not be the basis on which you started your family, but you must have been aware at the time you began your family that your income alone wouldn't be enough to survive on.

When the 50% rule came in a lot of women I know were angry. They didn't to share their parental leave. They wanted to e off work for a year and they wanted DH back out earning money full time after 2 weeks.

On average, whoever takes the longer block of parental leave will take the bigger hit career wise and family routines will evolve to land on them more. Be careful what you wish for.

In that sentence you are proving what I've said - you're reliant on your partner's income. That might not be the basis on which you started your family, but you must have been aware at the time you began your family that your income alone wouldn't be enough to survive on

We are reliant on BOTH our incomes.

His income is barely enough to survive on.

It is not the norm to be a one income family any more.

Stop making out like this is all down to my "choices" because it's not.

Why don't you just say what you actually mean? That poor people shouldn't have kids?

Absolutely. I have 2 DC, one nursery age, one primary. I’ve spent 20 years building a career in a very male-dominated industry, and was just finding the right balance between work and child rearing. Our school are looking at part time school combined with home schooling after the summer holidays, and I just don’t see how I can do this and work productively. I cried last night at the thought of doing this longer term. . .

A bloke I know with is a single dad.
He's having to take his kids to work and sit outside in a van - I'd say both are under 10.
If he doesn't do this, there's no money. He's working in social housing and having to enter people's homes.

He isn't able to do his normal routine as he cannot find childcare and his employer can't really budge (because they are already facing making others redundant, so hardly any scope for flexibility).

That poor people shouldn't have kids?

Now you're just inventing things! This has nothing to do with being poor - we are specifically talking about working parents and ways to avoid a position where as a woman you are forced to sacrifice your career - one of those would be to make sure you were in a position to be the sole earner if needed, before starting a family, so there would be no question of you giving up your job.

But even if I could be the sole earner I would still choose the higher income to be the sole earner because who wouldn't.

Men are generally still better paid than women. Nothing I personally do will change that.

Neither of our careers have come second? We've both worked ft and ds goes to nursery so how do we fit in with your theory?

What theory. That many women are happy to let their career take a back seat to be the main carer of the children?

If you actually read my post you will see I didnt do the above. Its not a theory. Its an observation. I have a very successful career. I also became a single parent.

I have managed people for 20 years. Many, many, many teams. Both male and female. Its an observation. Of course not every women does. Which is why i didn't say that.

Not really sure what you point is

I didn't think the conversation WAS about women sacrificing careers in order to have children (it's morphed into that). Woman ARE still disadvantaged in this regard.

My understanding was that the current situation (Covid) was causing a disadvantage to women...
In this regard, I do not believe they are disadvantaged.

The point is that just because some women earn less doesn't mean they have let their careers come second

The point is that just because some women earn less doesn't mean they have let their careers come second

Did I say all women or all women that earn less.

Where you quoted me i said 'many women' and yes many women are. Whatever you pick, its a trade off.

I would still choose the higher income to be the sole earner because who wouldn't.

And therein lies the problem. You're absolutely right 99% of people wouldn't, and while people continue to choose their lifestyles over equality of the sexes, things will never change, and that's why, like it or not, women are choosing to disadvantage themselves.

If, in households where the man is the main earner, more people were prepared to take a drop in household income to allow the male to take on the main carer/housekeeping role, thus giving the lower female earner a chance to build her career and eventually surpass her male partner in earning, things would very gradually change.

But it isn't happening because women choose to maximise their maternity leave and don't want to give up the lifestyle benefits earned by their partners, so don't want their partners to give up work or drop to part time. And those are choices.

This is precisely why the country should now be going back to normal. Fully. The elderly and those with underlying health conditions should continue in self isolation for the time being. Meanwhile everything should go back to normal, all schools to reopen, all businesses to reopen. In fact, everything back to how it was pre covid. The alternative is far more worrying. People losing their jobs, their businesses, suicide and homelessness increasing. Massive issues with mental health looming. The whole economy collapsing.

@puffinandkola I agree 100%

don't want to give up the lifestyle benefits earned by their partners

Sometimes it's not about lifestyle benefits sometimes its about paying your mortgage and feeding your kids.

Must be nice to live such a privileged life that all you consider is "lifestyle benefits"

And therein lies the problem. You're absolutely right 99% of people wouldn't, and while people continue to choose their lifestyles over equality of the sexes, things will never change, and that's why, like it or not, women are choosing to disadvantage themselves.

Right you are unnerving me now, hardly anyone ever agrees with me or holds the same view as me on here.