So where does it go wrong for women?

[Falalalafishfingers]

I'm sure this has been asked a 1009 times!
Read so many times in threads that it makes more sense for woman to give up work/ cut hours as dh/dp earns so much more. This suggests that men are already earning more pre-children?
So where does it go wrong? My guess is university.

@ouazazate

What are good industries to pick, do you think?

Local authorities - legal, finance and planners. Treated equally with the men. Part time pay is full time pro - rata. Pay is based on the job not the person.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Nope to all your post *@Uhhuhoyaye*. No mum guilt whatsoever Your post it’s straight from the modern wimmin only have themselves to blame

Just because you don’t feel any guilt doesn’t mean other women don’t. I think there’s a lot in what you say *@Uhhuhoyaye*. It’s not just childcare, I do most of the housework because the bloke doesn’t clean to my liking. I should just shrug my shoulders and lower my standards.

I don't agree. A lot of men want children

Mum guilt is just another shitty stick to beat women with. I’m content to not embrace that as a concept

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Mum guilt is just another shitty stick to beat women with. I’m content to not embrace that as a concept

This.100%

On mn a man works ft in professional job that’s a-ok. Good provider
Woman works ft in professional job. Shocker.bet she riddled with guilt
Tired tropes I see on mn a lot, regurgitated with alarming frequency

I think having one child is very different from having 2. We coped fine with one, and maybe again that's part of the discussion that we should be having when making these kinds of decisions.

This ^

And I was brought up without parents being 'present'. While many children cope just fine, I didn't. I was determined that my kids would not have my childhood. Having a job that I didn't particularly enjoy meant it was an easy decision to give it up when No 2 came along.

I have nothing against SAHM but I find it odd when women say that they dropped their career so they can “raise” their children- doesn’t it still count as raising your child if you’re working? Are men not raising their children if they work full time?

My parents both worked full time from when I was a tiny baby. I still think they raised me (and my dad did as much as my mum). The values I have come from them, we are close now, I couldn’t even tell you the names of most of my child care providers other than the one when I was 11, my memories are of doing things with my parents, they were the ones who looked after me when I was sick, organised my birthday parties, played Santa, made rules around what I could and couldn’t do, bought my clothes and toys, picked my schools, hosted my sleepovers, let me in their bed after a bad dream, fostered my hobbies, disciplined me, and loved me, and many many more things that make up raising a child.

I see it that my parents raised me, but childcare providers looked after me whilst my parents were at work.

My own preference (and not dismissing anyone else’s) would be to raise our (potential, future) child in a similar way- both working, with DH having equal input to me in the care of the DC. It’s what I see in my friends who have kids too- both parents work and the dads are hands-on. It’s probably notable that my friends have relied mostly or solely on grandparents for childcare and I’d hope to be able to do that too. Also all of my friends and I earn roughly equal to, or more than, our husbands.

My guess is that a lot of women still do traditionally “female” jobs that don’t pay well (like teaching and caring) whereas men are more likely to go into higher paying more traditionally “male” roles in STEM and business type subjects

This is interesting.

There's also evidence which suggests that as women move into certain areas that are thought of as 'masculine' jobs, the status and pay of those jobs generally goes down.

The prime historical example is the rile of Secretary, which was, until the late 19th century, a very respected and well-paid job, done exclusively by men. With the invention of the typewriter and the increasing levels of education young women were permitted to undertake (it's still only just over 100 years since most universities starting giving women degrees for their studies) and the entry of women into the job, the job of secretary moved from high status professional to lower middle class non-professional.

In the Soviet Union, the same thing happened to medical doctors - it was a profession largely staffed by women and consequently a fairly low status, not hugely well-paid job.

The sex pay gap also works in a couple of ways: the workplace is organised around male bodies & male life patterns. Female bodies have to fit into male space, and thus pregnancy and child-rearing have to be made invisible - which is impossible, so it's felt right" that women take the hit. That's one aspect of the sex pay gap - women's incomes start lower (feminine socialisation, not demanding etc) and go even lower with children. Married women are regarded with a certain amount of suspicion in the workplace

On the other hand, when men marry, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that their salaries go up - it's called the "marriage bonus." A married man is seen as more stable, more ambitious because he wants to provide for his family. In contrast to a married woman, who's seen as less stable, less ambitious, because she wants to care for her family.

And that's before we get to the unconscious bias which penalises women twice: firstly, in setting pay levels lower for women, and then responding negatively when women try to negotiate (Oh dear, this woman is behaving in a very unfeminine way ...)

None of this is deliberate - these are socialised, conditioned reflexes.

Education - women educated for even a part of their compulsory education in a single sex environment do better. Successive governments move heaven and earth to prevent this as girls in mixed environments serve as civilising influences. Or just can't be bothered.

@KTheGrey

Education - women educated for even a part of their compulsory education in a single sex environment do better. Successive governments move heaven and earth to prevent this as girls in mixed environments serve as civilising influences. Or just can't be bothered.

There are two girls grammar schools near where I live. They both out perform the boys grammar schools every year and not by a couple of %ages either. The majority of the girls will go into university.

I think that feminism in the 90s/00s tried to encourage women to see child rearing as lesser, and actually feminism needs to acknowledge that child rearing is valuable, and plays a hugely important role in society, once we’ve got our heads around that then we can look at making the workplace fairer.

Well, this obviously isn't true as it was feminism over this period that campaigned for the vastly improved maternity provision young women now benefit from and statutory paternity provision. Honestly, you have no idea how much better things are than when I had my children in the 90s and the ignorance of the battles feminism fought for to improve the rights of mothers really grates.

For a good dose of Mum guilt read the current thread: Single Mum joining the Army.

I can only speak for myself, but me and dh both started our careers out in simular financial industries. Neither of us have degrees but he doesn't even have a levels.

He seemed to be able to climb the greasy pole quite easily. Going from call centre staff to a professional back office role on a very good salary in about 10 years.

I never seemed to get past entry level jobs. Yet I've always been high performing in my roles. Even when I got into a higher up role it was in a smaller newer company and so the pay was still pretty low. That could have been my start to some real career progression, but then I had kids and have not worked since.

@HeadNorth

I think that feminism in the 90s/00s tried to encourage women to see child rearing as lesser, and actually feminism needs to acknowledge that child rearing is valuable, and plays a hugely important role in society, once we’ve got our heads around that then we can look at making the workplace fairer.

Well, this obviously isn't true as it was feminism over this period that campaigned for the vastly improved maternity provision young women now benefit from and statutory paternity provision. Honestly, you have no idea how much better things are than when I had my children in the 90s and the ignorance of the battles feminism fought for to improve the rights of mothers really grates.

It’s absolutely true. It was also politically driven at the same time. That battle for maternity provision was because of that, along with the policy of higher education for 50% of the population.

It was “Get back to work, women. You can only be fulfilled if you work outside your home and earn money”. When that attitude is pushed, the obvious result is that child rearing is devalued. Why else would people who work in child care be so poorly paid?

The irony is that second wave feminism was all about choice and in some ways women now have less choice than they did 40 years ago.

Well, this obviously isn't true as it was feminism over this period that campaigned for the vastly improved maternity provision young women now benefit from and statutory paternity provision. Honestly, you have no idea how much better things are than when I had my children in the 90s and the ignorance of the battles feminism fought for to improve the rights of mothers really grates

I had to come back to reply to this, in the early 90s I was taking women’s studies at university, being the first in my family to be able to go to university and coming form a very working class background it’s laughable you think my knowledge of feminism is ignorant.

The fact that we have good maternity provision doesn’t change the fact that society still sees caring and child rearing as less valuable than earning.

I missed your post VinylDetective , you articulated what I was trying to say much better than I did !

Re women in their 40’s/ 50’s breaking into exec / senior roles? I am seeing this happening more and more. Why?
In the main they either have no/ older children who are more independent.
The push to get more diversity on boards (including BAME) representation has never been stronger. Money is starting to follow diverse boards.
The current pond of (small) available talent being fished from now has more people turning up to capture the same amount of fish. Companies know that and lots are now in the phase of ‘active discrimination’ (against non minority workforce) to push more diverse talent through to the top.

We will see more diverse talent breaking into boardrooms. What we have to make sure of is that it isn’t the one token diverse hire.

There are more chances now than ever before from where I am sitting. Not saying it’s easy to navigate however as the non minority workforce know that too. And that in turn can lead to a very unhealthy culture around the few diverse employees.

@Silenceisgolden20

I don't agree. A lot of men want children

Some do, but a lot of men just go along with whatever their partner wants.

I think some of is that in many relationships the man is older so more likely to be further along in his career and therefore earning more. That was the case with us. We met at work and followed similar path but he was always a step ahead of me. When it came to having dc I earned less but honestly, I wanted time with the DC so I reduced hours. However I deliberately didn't stop work just let my career stagnate for a while until my DC were older. I now slightly out earn my DH.

The sex pay gap also works in a couple of ways: the workplace is organised around male bodies & male life patterns. Female bodies have to fit into male space

Yes, absolutely.

I think some of is that in many relationships the man is older so more likely to be further along in his career and therefore earning more

But this a kind of conditioning & socialisation: men tend to partner 'down' with women who are younger, less well-qualified, and less well-paid. Women ted to partner 'up' with men who are older more well-qualified, and more well-paid.

It's a deeply socialised pattern. Many men are socialised to feel that they must be 'boss' of their household, it runs very deep.

@TriflePudding

Well, this obviously isn't true as it was feminism over this period that campaigned for the vastly improved maternity provision young women now benefit from and statutory paternity provision. Honestly, you have no idea how much better things are than when I had my children in the 90s and the ignorance of the battles feminism fought for to improve the rights of mothers really grates

I had to come back to reply to this, in the early 90s I was taking women’s studies at university, being the first in my family to be able to go to university and coming form a very working class background it’s laughable you think my knowledge of feminism is ignorant.

The fact that we have good maternity provision doesn’t change the fact that society still sees caring and child rearing as less valuable than earning.

While you were taking women's studies I was having babies and so I can tell you for a fact you should be grateful for your second wave sisters that improved maternity and paternity provision for you instead of whinging that they didn't do feminism the way you wanted. The struggle continues and we don't progress without recognising where we have come from and who got us there.

HeadNorth

I don’t really understand why you are spoiling for a fight ? We don’t have to butt heads because our experiences are different.

My point was that feminism in the 90s failed to recognise the value of child rearing/caring roles, I say that as a women who was at university, I would definitely be interested in how your experience differed - as someone who was raising babies did you feel differently? Did you feel supported in being a mum, were you pressured into getting back into work ?

I don't think it's whinging to say that maternity provision (particularly when there is no onus / provision for the father to take leave to care for children) is a double edged sword. I don't think anyone's arguing that it's worse than not having it, it's an amazing advance that we do of course, just that if only the woman is entitled to it or even if there is a societal / employer pressure against men taking it, then it of course will reinforce stereotypical sex roles and mean that more women take time out of a career than men when they have children.

It's difficult though because women bear a physical reality of childbearing that men never will. The physical reality is important to recognise - I remember reading an article recently about women who were left doubly incontinent after forceps deliveries - these things make it difficult to return to work. Men just don't have these physical realities to deal with. I don't think I was physically recovered enough at 6 months after the birth of each of mine to return to work - it would have been very, very hard. I had a lot of ongoing health issues, plus the fact I was breastfeeding through the night and getting virtually no sleep.

The other thing that's important is that just because there's a law against something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In applying for jobs, I know there are jobs I've missed out on because I have children. That will never be the reason of course it will always be 'we feel the other candidate's experience is a better match'. It's difficult to hide having time out for children if you're honest on a CV and of course it's off-putting for employers with the way the workplace is structured.

And again, childrearing just isn't valued. At all. Which I really think is one of the main parts of the problem. It isn't true in all cultures, I've lived in countries where the SAHM role is really respected and valued (and also childcare costs a lot more and those who do it are paid a lot more). Not the UK, though.

And yet, the damage of an inadequate childhood environment is widely recognised.