To partially disagree with the argument about the 'second shift' made by some WASPIS?

[Carla786]

I know that workplace discrimination was rife for women who were born in the 1950s. Lack of childcare etc. I'm not disputing that.

I disagree partly with the argument made by some WASPIS that the 'second shift' (housework/childcare) they had to do while in paid work is important to their case.

For one thing, women in the 1970s & 80s were more likely to work less hours, work part-time. Men were more likely to work longer hours, do more overtime. Obviously this was fuelled by discrimination, lack of childcare that I mentioned above.

This ties to my other point : in the 70s & 80s raising children was often less labour-intensive than today, in the sense that children played out a lot more, ferrying to many activities was less common, parental input even in primary school was generally a bit less intense than expected often today. Studies (I'll link) have shown mothers (and fathers) spend longer with their kids today, whether or not they work.

So I suppose my point is: did that many WASPI age women experience a second shift as such?
I'm not disputing the misogyny of the era often but otoh if childcare was less labour-intensive than today, and many women were SAHM, part time, and less likely to work overtime, were a lot of women necessarily experiencing a 'second shift' in the sense of spending more hours working than their husband? In this equation, housework and childcare are counted as work, as well as paid work.

My older sisters are WASPIS - there's quite a big gap between them and me. They were born in the late 40s / early 50s. I'm closer in age to my nieces and nephews than I am to them.

I remember in the 1970s that they both had cars. Husbands were good with kids and around the house. They didn't buy ready meals, however, food wasn't exactly a brain strain. I lived with the oldest one for a number of years and have very fond memories of the chip pan:

Monday - egg and chips
Tuesday - left over sunday meat, mash and peas
Wednesday - sausage, chips and beans
Thursday - something like hot dogs
Friday - fish and chips from the chippy
Saturday - tea (so something like sandwiches)
Sunday - Sunday dinner

There was an automatic washing machine but no tumble drier. Clothes went on the washing line or an airer. We didn't actually change our clothes that much. Clean pants and socks every day. A shirt would do 2-3 days and a skirt / trousers the same. If you were going to get dirty, then you'd wear an overall or an apron. Bath twice a week. Showers didn't really exist in the 70s / for much of the early 80s.

No biggish freezer, microwave or dishwasher until the very late 80s, and a tumble drier came along at the same time too.

Work was closer, so commute was tiny, 15 mins max even though we lived in a big city. No one got dropped off at or picked up from school. Older kids would deal with the younger kids - and there were a lot of kids around so everyone had someone to go with. 'Playing out' was totally normal. We had a street light, you know, that master one that comes on first. We were all told that we had to come home as soon as the master light went on. No one checked where we were or what we were doing. No mobiles. No tracking. The actual phone cost a bloody fortune so no one was busy creating drama away from school because we'd all get told off if we dared to use the house phone. If you got hurt while you were 'playing out' everyone just accepted that was normal - broken arms, dislocated shoulders, bloody nose when you went over your handlebars, lol.

Telly was boring. Books were more interesting.

We were basically left alone, and not really expected to be at home unless we were asleep. With both 'parents' (i.e. my sister and her husband) working, there really wasn't much housework and, in any case, we were responsible for our bit of it. I was hoovering my own room and doing the whole family's ironing by the time I was 11 (so beginning of the 80s). The idea that kids would just sit around doing nothing didn't make sense to anyone. Devil makes work for idle hands, etc.

One thing I do remember was that tea was at tea time, which was around 5.30pm. Meaning, if you left for work at 7.15am, then you were home for 4.30pm. I think the work day has got longer which has made the whole day longer. Even from my experience (born 1968), I wasn't struggling home with my kids from nursery at 6pm when they were little.

I actually do think it's harder for families now.

I think it's hard to make comparisons based upon what appliances you did or didn't have at home because (1) this will depend upon household income more than era - most low-income households these days also lack a tumble and a dishwasher and (2) the costs of things has flipped - used to be that housing and energy were cheap whilst consumer electronics were expensive - now it's the opposite.

I don’t think housework or running the home, bringing up children has ever been valued so cant believe pension age was to do with that. Wasn’t it because men were usually older than their wives (which they were mostly imv because men needed to be in a job /trade to afford to run a home) and when they retired the wife stayed home to care for them. A man at 65 in a physical job for life would be pretty well done for. And they all smoked.

I'm sure there were some cases of men doing more hours than their wives. There were several million couples in the cohort. Since we're talking about a big population, it's ridiculous to expect every single person to be the same. The relevant point would be what was most common and to what extent.

I don't know that part time work was much of a break for the women who did it. I think they spent a lot of that time on housework, community work and caring for younger and older generations. But I do think the second shift argument ignores the fact men, on the whole, did far more physically wearing jobs that significantly shortened their lives.

I know a lot didn't choose, and workplace unfairness was worse then- but the issue is that the second shift argument wouldn't apply to WASPIs who were Sahms, and less so to Waspis who were Sahms for at least until kids were older.

On the Sahm issue, probably some did want to stay at home? Of course many didn't.

I agree that about housework & care work. Not sure if I'd count community volunteering as second shift exactly though it is really important.

I do definitely agree re men's jobs. I don't mean this in a whatabouty way : women had a lot to cope with. But men of that Gen did have a different and arguably more lethal often form of unfairness in that they retired later with shorter life expectancy and worse if doing a heavy physical job esp. Worse safety standards then too (asbestos etc)

Both of these appliances need space to accommodate them. The first house I rented after my divorce had a tiny kitchen ( you could wash the entire kitchen floor by pushing a mop backwards and forwards twice.) . There was no room for either of these and no worktop space to hold a tiny dishwasher. I was a supply teacher with 2 young children. If I'd had a dryer I wouldn't have dared to switch it on. I simply couldn't afford to run it.

Community work was essential to a good society and shored up government services. It kept libraries open, shored up social services with things like home visits and meal delivery for the infirm (mainly through the church, I think), put on community events, etc.

Given that we're talking about the state pension here, unpaid community work seems very relevant.

And it still does. It doesn’t justify enhanced pension payments to a narrow cohort of women who chose to ignore the news.

The Ombudsman ruling disagrees with you.

Less labour intensive? 😅😂😂 I hope you're joking rather than simply misinformed.

The ombudsman ruling didn’t have anything do with how much or little chores women do in their own home, or apparently all the community work they did with their absence of free time. It was purely about a very small sub-sect of WASPI’s regarding notice.

No they don’t. The level of work Waspis did in their own homes or in society is utterly irrelevant to the ombudsman’s ruling.

The Ombudsman disagreed with your verdict that it was “a narrow cohort who chose to ignore the news”. The real issue for most of us in that cohort is the very short notice of the 2012 changes and the unfairness of the transition. I agree that the “second shift” argument is weak at best.

To not be aware of the changes took quite some effort. The ombudsman said the DWP should have written to each individual but also said that information was widely available.

I think in the 70s, more so than the 80s, many women didn’t drive or households couldn’t afford a second car, so women had to use public transport or walk much more than working women do these days. There were more local butchers, greengrocers and bakery shops so we didn’t do the big weekly shop at a supermarket, but walked to local shops. Actually I enjoyed this much more than I do now at the supermarkets

My mum is a WASPI and I grew up in the early 80s. We absolutely had a washing machine and tumble dryer, also a microwave and ready meals. She ironed the very bare minimum, and definitely not duvet covers or tea towels.

My mum worked very part time. I work full time and we eat far more meals that are cooked from scratch than I did growing up! We don’t had a dishwasher, but washing up was my job from the age of 6 or 7. As someone said up thread, it was 1980, not 1880. I don’t think even my grandmother had a mangle. 😂

Oh give over. I work full time, am bringing up three kids and volunteer extensively in the community. My state pension age is 67 and about to go up to 68. But do I get a gold star for my “second shift” and get to retire at 60 too?

I totally agree - my FILs partner who is no longer with us would have been a WASPI, she was a nice person yes, but did absolutely next to no paid work after her first was born till ‘retirement’ age nor any community work either - the fact is that yes housework was often tougher , there were not nurseries on every corner, although a lot of women had more parental help but the thing is full pensions are contribution based and if you haven’t been paying in you can’t really be suprised when you don’t get full benefit out - those who were working were given a lot of notice to say they would need to contribute extra years If they wanted a full pension on their own entitlement. State pensions don’t make any allowances for whether you sat on your arse, or tended to elderly parents or whatever - it’s a purely fiscal thing based on number of years NI contribution . As it is many of these women had lots of years contributions paid in for them by the gvt due to child care years.

I've been doing some googling:-
Vacuum cleaners became popular in the 1950s
Washing machines also in the 1950s
Dishwashers also arrived in the 1950s, but only widespread in late 70s
Microwaves arrived late 70s.

Hmmmmm -I was abroad in the early &0s. We were provided with household goods-all the Americans had these microwave ovens which I’d barely heard of.
popular in the states where they were wealthier wasn’t the same as the UK - also many houses struggled to fit in fridges and dishwashers if they could afford them . But don’t let that takeaway from all women having it sooooooooo much harder today. Which is al these threads are about

I mean the vast majority of households today have 1 still have car, what’s your point?

I live in the suburbs of a large city and looking around at night most of the houses have more than one car, so I wouldn’t agree with you. The main ones who don’t are either single or older couples where the wife never drives. My point was that most women in the 70s couldn’t just get in the car to nip to the shops or visit family. I’m not saying people don’t walk or use public transport now but it’s more by choice than necessity. ‘Choice’ is what women in the recent past never had

Looking around at night doesn’t change the reality that only around 30% of households have a second car. It’s still a small minority.

I think this thread is a great example of people being absolutely certain that other cohorts have had things easier than them.