To wonder why some people don't work full-time?

[donniedarko89]

I was part-time myself while DD was very young as I wanted to spend time with her. I know many mums however who have stayed part time even after the kids go to school. They only work 2 or 3 days a week. The thing is, they're not loaded, on the contrary they keep complaining that finances are tight and they can't afford stuff - then why not increase your work days (they could all easily do it)? Some of them even have a cleaner. No hobbies on the side either. It genuinely puzzles me!

Holding sites have bad reputations for sexual harrasment of women. I wouldn’t wanna work on one for that wry reason. Not because I’m a weak lady scared of breaking a nail.

I don't buy it's all down to socialisation conditioning. That viewpoint is way too shallow imo.

Even where there is 100% equality of opportunity, there will still not be 100% equality of outcomes. And nor should there be because, in SOME ways, men and women are different.

@ambermorning

No one is saying there would be an equal split of men and women making the same choices.

But pretending we shouldn't even bother trying because men and women are different is bullshit.

Women are limited by societal ideals and conditioning. So are men really.

It's clearly not just coincidence - I agree.

DP and I are both women and we've found it very, very noticeable how people assume that 'the mum' will want to be part time. We've both had to push back against career hits as a result.

This exactly why I work part-time, 3 days a week. Infact, I was offered full time 2 days ago, had to turn it down again because the 1 and only after school club is full and the 1 and only childminder with availability is so unreliable that I can't depend on her for any more days than I already need her. I have been in my job 1 year and she has cancelled on me 6 times. The constant stress it puts me under trying to get people to watch my dd for the 3 days, never mind adding on an extra 2 days. I swear she takes the piss because she knows there is no other childcare option.

For this reason, I wont be going full time until dd in high school.

For someone who used to work part ime, it's abit strange that your mind can't stretch that far to imagine reasons as to why people can only work part time.

I have no idea whether it's socialisation or genuine choice. But now we're starting to think more about gender representation we need to keep pushing it to ensure there is 100% equality of opportunity. Currently I don't think there is, for all manner of reasons, from schooling, parenting and social factors.

Why is it important? For me, it's because men pretty much shape the world we live in. Like it or not, men dominate professions that make up so much of the world around us that it's become heavily one sided.

But this is also a very privileged position. There are many jobs, absolutely vital to the functioning of society, that don’t allow the luxury of ‘never outsourcing childcare’. Police, healthcare workers, firefighters, refuse collectors, school staff, prison officers, retail workers, transport workers, childcare providers etc, (not to mention the cleaning staff, administration staff etc that keep these services ticking over). If all the parents of children who were of an age to require childcare left these jobs, the services would grind to a halt.

It is also disingenuous to pretend that all parents can easily walk into jobs which allow the flexibility to do school pickup and collection, be available during school holidays etc. Or that these jobs don’t still make it difficult to balance childcare. My eldest dc has been back at school just short of 6 weeks, . I’m currently on maternity leave and have so far collected his friend 3 times, because the parent’s flexible, around school hours to allow for pickup etc job has had compulsory meetings that have overlapped the end of the school day. The child’s other (full time working) parent has also been on shift during this time. Their options are either ‘outsource’ childcare, OR negotiate with their employees some time off, and in many jobs that just isn’t painless on a regular basis. There has been enough threads on mumsnet discussing ‘cheeky fucker’ employees who have required, what is deemed excessive, time off to deal with childcare issues, to know how these employees are often viewed by colleagues/employers. For many it is not as simple as just ducking out to allow their full time job to fit around their families’ needs.

There is absolutely a conversation to be had around why it’s, in the vast majority of cases, the woman who reduces her hours, and how much free choice vs societal expectations is actually involved. But many full time jobs take both parents out of the house for 10+ hours a day. In these situations something has to give. Pretending that these hours don’t mean that often children have longer days in school/childcare than many view as ideal, that reading books/homework is done later in the evening when the child is tired/less engaged, or that the child needs to go to bed later and/or get up earlier than is optimal for them, means that you’re failing to acknowledge a big reason why, in many families one parent does end up working part time. You’re failing to acknowledge one of the big advantages these families gain from their situation, one of the big factors they weigh up when making the because it doesn’t apply to your own.

Less money is a nice choice to have.

It could probably be a choice for many people - don't jump down my throat, I didn't say all people - if they had less expectations from life. I lead a very simple life, therefore I don't need to earn a lot of money and can work part-time. I would much rather work fewer hours and have less than work full-time just for luxuries. As long as I can pay my rent, utility bills, food and have a little for myself I'm happy.

Because its none of your business if someone wants to

Interesting thread.

I don't think the OP is saying that women shouldn't work PT or even be SAHMs.

But it's the whining about being poor that is irritating because if you were that bothered about being poor, you would work FT.

I know exactly what the OP means. We had a lovely - and expensive - foreign holiday in the summer. Someone I know in my social circle said how "lucky" we were as she wasn't able to afford to go away. Woman in question doesn't work (lifestyle choice) and is married to a man who only works about 25 hours a week (lifestyle choice). I nodded and smiled but thought, no I'm not "lucky"; DH and I work like dogs to afford a nice holiday and my friend has the option to find a job and save for a holiday herself if she really wanted to go.

@FlamencoDance

we just found that me being part time works for us and our family’

”It works for our family” is code for “it works for him and I don’t earn as much as him so I go along with it and don’t push back”.

People trot this phrase out all the time on here and rarely stop to consider why the default is always for the woman to earn less.

Of course there are plenty of women who enjoy working less and having more time with family. But the fact that this is the division of labour everyone defaults to is quite telling.

FWIW, DP and I have regularly swapped the employee/stay home parent roles, and expect to continue to do so.

@SarahAndQuack I think this is the best example of equality. No one is saying both parents have to work full time and obviously the need for childcare is a priority but it's the insistence that it's all the women who are 'taking me time / well deserved rest / better for us as a family' and the insistence that part time workers somehow love their children more and want to spend more time with them etc is what's winding people up as it's simply not true and just an excuse to justify and deflect.

It can and should be either parent. There should always be the opportunity to swap and offer that privilege to each other. No one person should always have to full time time at the expense of the other. Presumably once children have left home, part time working doesn't usually continue in the same way anyway.

I don’t understand either. My BF works part time. She doesn’t whine about not having money. But I think her partner resents the fact that he does 5 days and she does 3. I have always worked full time as my career is important to me and I want to always be financially independent from my partner. I picked a school with full wrap around care on purpose. My DD loved the after school club and wanted to stay until 6pm every day. But that is just my view and circumstances and I fully appreciate everyones is different.

For me it doesn’t make sense yet, whilst I could easily work more hours during term time but then the amount I’d need to pay out for holiday cover increases massively. DH is limited in when he can take leave (generally not school holidays) so my allowance doesn’t cover it. Maybe when they’re in high school it’ll be different.

I work full time and it's shit and really stressful (kids are young though) and i dont really have a huge amount of money to show for it either.

Some older kids could have hidden needs/MH issues which mean parents need to be around more at home.

I work part time, DH works from home. I would love to go full time and it would make a big difference to our income. But we have a teenager with autism who mostly refuses school. Every day is a battle and firstly she responds to me better and secondly DH has to get some bloody work done. He can't on the days he's doing it on his own.

From the outside we look perfectly normal and I'm sure people would wonder why I don't work full time.

Because no one looks back on their life from their death bed and says 'damn I wish I had worked full time'

Everybody is allowed a moan.

I'm sure full time working mums complain that they don't have any time and their balance is off. It wouldn't be fair to judge them for not going part time just because they like a whinge about their situation.

Definitely not, but the bit between retirement (assuming 65ish) and death at say 85 is quite a long time.

Sure, money isn't everything but having been dirt poor and now comfortable, money gives you options. My OH is an, "it'll be fine, everything will work out" person. However I know full well that we want to do things and go places when we have time. That's going to require a reasonable pot of money.

Also, we don't really know how our health is going to go. Therefore my opinion is that you don't overwork yourself but it's a waste if you can work FT but don't.

For my OH it's the difference between saving an additional £1k to £1.5k/month. £12k/pa or another £132k (min) by the time we retire (excluding what we're already saving). No-one is burning themselves out, just ticking over until retirement.

I guess it's down to perspectives but I think we'll be looking back at our golden years with a lot more appreciation, having made hay, than working PT till 70 as we need the money for the basics.

You’re assuming kids need both parents at home to feel loved and given attention. There’s no need to answer your question because it’s set up on a false premise.

in an ideal world both parents would be available for some of the time to be present at home with their children.

but reality isn’t like that. Your mum or dad is going to be better 99% of the time than a wraparound person. Can you at least agree with that?

that’s your question to answer.

I’m fed up of men and women denying the impact that full time wraparound care during school and full time clubs in the holidays has on their kids.

the ones I have seen, every single one of them are mean. Really mean and they’ve been mean to my children. And they look sad and miserable. Class bullies.

perhaps there are others that are sweetness and light but kids aren’t supposed to be outsourced.

and yes I know structurally it’s often the mum that stays home and this is the limited point you keep trying to make but it neatly side-steps the issue that someone, SOMEONE, has to give something up to look after the children. You can’t keep passing the buck and outsource all the care. From what I’ve seen these kids are deeply troubled and sad. Being in full time wraparound care for 48 weeks of the year, following their parents holiday schedule is horrific. They get no time off. I don’t think it’s fair on the kids. Yet parents will make every excuse under the sun, oh he has fun, it’s good for his socialisation. All of them in my experience have turned into bullies because they are pissed off with life at having no one who really cares about them. So they turn.

I’m a single parent working full time because I have no choice financially . I would love to drop to three days a week so I could do the house and mum stuff better. Part time is a healthier balance when you have children in the home, teenagers are as much in need of parents being there as smaller children.

@ChangeOver22

From what I’ve seen these kids are deeply troubled and sad. Being in full time wraparound care for 48 weeks of the year, following their parents holiday schedule is horrific. They get no time off. I don’t think it’s fair on the kids. Yet parents will make every excuse under the sun, oh he has fun, it’s good for his socialisation. All of them in my experience have turned into bullies because they are pissed off with life at having no one who really cares about them.

Out of interest, what would you suggest I do with my DD? As a lone parent with no other support. How exactly would you suggest I care for my daughter without using wraparound care?

You seem to have so much high quality data on the impact of wraparound care on children, I'm just wondering what your pearls of wisdom are for people who don't have access to your superior family structure?

This.