Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

301 replies

Carla786 · 15/02/2026 19:47

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.

OP posts:
TheignT · 20/02/2026 09:00

MrsMurphyIWish · 20/02/2026 06:23

But doesn’t that timeline still exist today? For instance I was born in ‘78 but after April so my retirement age is 68 but if I had been born from Jan-April I could retire at 67.

You've had more warning. My retirement age changed twice, I have no issue with the first change but the second change was very short notice and four months was significant.

In your case it is also a sharp change which I think could be more gradual but time to prepare makes a big difference. Even if you only discovered this today you have more warning than I did.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread