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.

TriflePudding I found your post condescending, ignorant and ungrateful. Condescending because you thought studying women's studies meant your view could not possible be wrong; ignorant as you failed to recognise a lot of second wave feminism focused on maternity provision as well as childcare and reproductive rights; and ungrateful as you dismissed how much the work of those older women has contributed to rights you now appear to take for granted.

I think it is wonderful women in my workplace have access to enhanced maternity leave, and couples can use shared parental leave and fathers are entitled to paternity leave. Because of where I have come from, I recongised these as great advances for families.

What is germane is that for most women the white hot time of babies and toddlers probably occupies 5 - 6 years max of a working life that could span 40 years. But because of those years, women find themselves permanently behind for the remaining 30 plus years in terms of seniority and pay and behind for the rest of their lives in terms of pension provision. It goes back to the 'leaky pipeline' I referenced earlier - how can we prevent those child bearing years holding women back in the workplace and financially forever?

Incentives for companies for the first year or two of hiring women (or men) coming back from a period out of work due to childcare would be an amazing thing. It would probably be of benefit to all, as well, yet it doesn't seem very common (there are a few schemes, I've looked into it, mostly quite niche though).

Women tend to marry slightly older men

Came here to say this (although in my case DP is 18 years older and we've taken turns being the highest earner).

I don't think women necessarily date people who earn more than them but I know my peer group all went for people older since in our twenties Tinder had turned out male counterparts into trash.

I think you’ve misinterpreted what Trifelepudding said @HeadNorth. What I understand her to be saying is that the price of all the advances feminism has achieved in this area also has an inevitable down side. That child care is regarded as low value is reflected in the low level of pay to its providers and the common perception as seen frequently on MN that it’s not “real work”. On another thread someone referred to it as a “hobby”!

I became a mother in the mid 70s. At that time it was entirely normal to stop working when your first child was born and return - almost always part time - when the youngest started school. Childcare was as rare as hens’ teeth. I’m the generation that fought strenuously for maternity rights and better childcare. I’m glad we did but the inevitable - and unintended - consequence of that achievement is the down valuing of child rearing when it should arguably be the most important job. The future literally depends on it.

Child rearing will never be valued until men have a stake in it. An earlier poster referenced the feminisation of professions and how that downgrades their status and pay. Teachers is an example in the UK. In the UK, doctors are currently relatively high status and pay, in other countries (China, Russia) I understand it is a more female profession and consequently lower status and pay.

That is why paternity leave and shared parental provision is key - give men more skin the game and its status will rise. Which will be beneficial for women and children.

HeadNorth

You have attributed a lot of hidden meaning to my posts!

You commented on my initial post saying during the 90s you were a mum, so I commented back to say I was at uni and taking women’s studies.
No where did I say i thought that made me an expert on feminism! I was telling you what my background was in the context of the discussion.

During the 90s certainly in ‘academic feminism’ caring roles we’re definitely not valued, and choosing to be a
SAHM was seen as being anti feminist. And that attitude hasn’t moved on, that’s what feminists (in the West) really need to tackle at the moment.

On a personal level my ideas around feminism have changed massively since having children (and also influenced by having a child with SEN).

VinylDetective

Thank you. Yes that’s what I meant.

That is why paternity leave and shared parental provision is key - give men more skin the game and its status will rise. Which will be beneficial for women and children.

It would benefit women who took it up. And many, many women wouldn’t want to. I don’t think it would particularly benefit children and it would disbenefit men. I can’t see it changing much in my lifetime.

@VinylDetective

That is why paternity leave and shared parental provision is key - give men more skin the game and its status will rise. Which will be beneficial for women and children.

It would benefit women who took it up. And many, many women wouldn’t want to. I don’t think it would particularly benefit children and it would disbenefit men. I can’t see it changing much in my lifetime.

I think having an active and involved father is a huge benefit to children. And it doesn't disbenefit men so much as begin to level the playing field, when both men and women are impacted by having a family. As I said, the amount of time women take out of the workplace to have children is hugely disproportionate to the permanent impact it has on their earning potential and financial stability right into their old age. The hit should be shared.

TriflePudding you said: 'it’s laughable you think my knowledge of feminism is ignorant.' which did come across as pretty condescending.

the amount of time women take out of the workplace to have children is hugely disproportionate to the permanent impact it has on their earning potential and financial stability right into their old age

I’m sorry but I totally disagree. I know this is anecdotal but in my age group - recent retirees - that simply isn’t true and we took a lot more time out than women do now.

I think the real difference is that we had our kids in our 20s and had a bloody good run at our careers from our 30s onwards. That’s why we see women in their late 40s/50s really surging forward, their male counterparts seem to be burnt out/complacent at that stage.

@VinylDetective

the amount of time women take out of the workplace to have children is hugely disproportionate to the permanent impact it has on their earning potential and financial stability right into their old age

I’m sorry but I totally disagree. I know this is anecdotal but in my age group - recent retirees - that simply isn’t true and we took a lot more time out than women do now.

I think the real difference is that we had our kids in our 20s and had a bloody good run at our careers from our 30s onwards. That’s why we see women in their late 40s/50s really surging forward, their male counterparts seem to be burnt out/complacent at that stage.

I would love it if women in their late 40s/50s were surging ahead of men in the workplace. But sorry, anecdotal from me as well, that is not what I see in my sector. I suspect if you look at the statistics that is also not what you will see in the board rooms, either.

In terms of pensioner poverty, women fare the worst and that is not anecdotal: www.ageing-better.org.uk/news/older-women-bearing-burden-lifetime-lower-pay-and-unequal-working-conditions As the linked article states, older women are more vulnerable to financial difficulties than men, with both their employment history and family circumstances impacting on pension income. A few years out for your family should not mean an impoverished old age, but for toom many it does.

From my experience, I went to University got a good degree and a good job with prospects to train. But I was more focused on working on finding the right person, then my focus was saving for a house, then we got married. So rather than taking any training, I was more inclined to set up family foundations in this way. It wasn't even a conscious decision, I just wanted to get married to the person I loved, buy a house together and start living in it.

Baby no. 1 arrived at the age of 32, I took 9 months mat leave and returned to work part-time. Stayed part-time whilst he was a preschooler because we couldn't afford the childcare bill. Granted, DH could have stayed with him rather than me but honestly, I wasn't ready to return to work full-time, I didn't want to miss his little years.

It meant a lot to me on a deep level, seeing my baby boy grow and turning into a person before my eyes. It made work seem like the part of my life that wasn't as real somehow. Necessary, but not the most important job I had. Being a mum was a game-changer for me in this respect. Baby no.2 arrived at the age of 36, and I still work part-time now, two years after his birth. Again, it's because the childcare bill would almost outstrip my salary but also, DH got a promotion when Baby 2 was born so is on significantly more than me. I also feel the same way I did when I had the first baby - I don't want to put him into childcare x 5 days a week so I can work full-time.

I can only speak from my personal perspective but no-one ever lay on their death-bed wishing they'd had more time at work. I'm 38 now, I've most likely got another 38 years of working life ahead of me, God willing I live that long.

I take the view that I had to get real life sorted first - the personal stuff, the babies, the early years with me, doing all the little activities, the cuddles and the baby giggles. I don't want to die regretting that I missed those years with them. Work is work - it'll be there waiting for me when I'm ready.

@HeadNorth, your link doesn’t provide the evidence you think it does:

The review highlights that severe inequalities for older people are largely a product of poverty and disadvantage throughout life. Poor education and work opportunities, along with lack of social connection can have long term consequences, often made worse by factors such as reduced income in retirement and the impact of having many long-term health conditions.

Whilst women suffer these inequalities more than men, people from BAME backgrounds and some from LGBT are also disproportionately disadvantaged

Not only does it not mention the impact of time out for child rearing but it also applies to groups other than women.

The link states that ''In terms of pensioner poverty, women fare the worst''. It doesn't say 'only women are affected' and no one has claimed that.
There are structural inequalitiies that lead for poorer outcomes for some groups, and equality legislation is an attempt to help redress that.

Life happened to me, that's where it "went wrong" as you put it, so I couldn't end up using my uni degree where it would've been best used (another country) as my dad died when I was 19, my mum was an insane drunk, and I had no one else to help me with my poor lonely grandmother so had to remain in England as the right decision to make. I accepted it, that's just what happens sometimes. I can live my happiness in other ways, but it doesn't mean my life is "wrong" just because women like you only give importance to another female's life through only singular ways and channels.

@Thelnebriati

The link states that ''In terms of pensioner poverty, women fare the worst''. It doesn't say 'only women are affected' and no one has claimed that. There are structural inequalitiies that lead for poorer outcomes for some groups, and equality legislation is an attempt to help redress that.

The passage I quoted doesn’t say women fare the worst. It says they fare worse than men, along with people from the BAME and LGBT groups - both of which include men. If you’re born into poverty with few opportunities that sets the course of your entire life, regardless of your sex - that can’t be news to anyone.

I would love it if women in their late 40s/50s were surging ahead of men in the workplace. But sorry, anecdotal from me as well, that is not what I see in my sector. I suspect if you look at the statistics that is also not what you will see in the board rooms, either

We’re different generations, it happened in mine because our child rearing years were over by our mid 40s.

No one here is claiming women are the only group affected or that other groups are not affected.

This whole thread about where does it go ‘wrong’ for women is measuring their working life only? Does balance/happiness come into it?
My sister, married - no kids - works full time is a senior position in her office. Above anything she wants to work part time so she has a work/life balance. She can’t get it as any part time role means she will not keep her current position.

Imo it all goes ‘wrong’ when employers take a stance that somebody working 20 hours a week can never be as good as somebody working 40 hours a week.
Work and earning potential is not everything anymore for many people.

A lot of men can do "women jobs".
How many women choose to
mend cars, go down sewers, mine etc.
And for all their working lives?

@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.

Girls are used to sponges to mop up the bad behaviour of the boys:(

@lightand

A lot of men can do "women jobs". How many women choose to mend cars, go down sewers, mine etc. And for all their working lives?

Of course women don't aspire to do dirty dangerous work no one does if they could get paid more for doing something less onerous

@Thelnebriati

No one here is claiming women are the only group affected or that other groups are not affected.

Actually the poster who provided the link asserted exactly that.

@lightand

A lot of men can do "women jobs". How many women choose to mend cars, go down sewers, mine etc. And for all their working lives?

Google 'women builders' 'women plumbers' etc to find the women's groups for each industry. They have to work twice as hard to deal with the job and the sexism within the industry - remember that many places used to be closed shops.

I'm lucky, it didn't go wrong for me.
I think it's being realistic and choosing someone who treats you equally from the start.
Someone who thinks your views, opinions and plans in life are worth it, not just giving lip service to your plans.
You can tell which men are going to be any use after a while. Some women rush in before they know the man properly.
Live with them for 5 years with no financial commitment, or children.
You'll know him well enugh by then