Can anyone explain to me why the addition of women to the paid workforce did not result in decreased working hours for all?

[neverquitesure]

So we had a society where most women were not in paid employment and have moved to one where significantly more are. Why aren't we all (men and women) working reduced hours and why hasn't the family unit been elevated into the public consciousness?

I understand some of the issues; i.e. women are now being paid for work that they would have been expected to do unpaid (caring and community responsibilities for example) but still can't get my head around where all this extra work has come from - if indeed it has at all.

Is this some sort of transitional stage we are at or are there wider world forces at work (emerging economies & the growth of import etc)?

My brain is tired. Can someone please explain their take on the situation to me. Using little words if possible!

PS. Be gentle with me. I haven't posted in Feninism before.

Your question assumes that there is a fixed amount of work to be shared out among the available workforce. There isn't. The amount of work available expands and contracts due to many factors. Employers try to get more from existing workers as it is cheaper than taking on extra staff.
Teachers work longer hours now than in the 1960 s, despite smaller classes, because they are expected to do much more paperwork, attend more meetings etc.
Similarly new technology, which was expected to reduce workload for office workers, has actually increased it.

Because business doesn't work on the premise of people wanting to work less, but more - ever more power and ever more money.

Salaries have decreased in real terms over the years (apart from v highly paid people whose have sky-rocketed)

House prices have gone through the roof

So while you used to be able to have a reasonable life on one income now in most parts of the country you need 2

I don't understand why you say women are being paid for care work and community responsibilities?

Lots of people in the workforce at the moment working less hours than they want. The model in the UK is you work as much as poss - that's the culture - so apart from when people need to reduce their hours it generally just doesn't occur to them - and isn't available anyway - and in our work culture would adversely affect their opportunities.

When WAS this society when "most" women were not in paid employent? I beleive that after WWII, women were encouraged to leave the workplace to make room for returning soldiers - leading to the rosy idyll of the housewife, but my understanding is that "working class" women, at least, always worked.

Porto's point is correct as well of course.

I think partly because we consume so much more in material terms, more stuff in our houses, more holidays and meals out, more toys for our kids etc. Huge increases in the amount of fuel and electric used.

And certainly only the wealthiest would not be expected to work at all in their lives - even the victorian idea of the homemaker applied to women who were married. Women and girls worked before they were married across the classes in all except the wealthiest I think.

History of women in the workforce

American working practices

Someone more knowledgeable than me will come along soon and may well correct me but I think...

It's because the idea that women don't work is a relatively modern one. Poor women have always worked, whether through taking in washing, mending etc or helping their husbands run a family business or in factories or on the land. Middle and upper classes have always been much smaller so not a large enough group to impact. The growth of middle classes in the Victorian era fueled the idea that women don't work I think.

I suspect that inflation, house prices and the growth of the nuclear family have had the biggest impact on women working. As house prices have outstripped a single persons wage both family members need to work to afford property. The lack of help from family with child care, coupled with expensive child care places again encourages both parents to work.

As to where the jobs have come from? Finance sector, retail sector, education and those employed by the state are my guess.

As I said, I could be talking crap so no offense taken if anyone disagrees :o

Oh bugger, lots of cross posts. Typing too slow!

I think even quite well off middle class unmarried women worked in victorian times - governess comes to mind.

Girls who failed to find a husband became governesses. It wasn't something women did to pass the time before they got married.

neverquitesure - Welcome and it is great that you have posted here. I find here much gentler than AIBU, unless the poster is of the opinion that all feminists are a bunch of moaning, hairy, lesbians. Although I am .

I am hardly an expert in this but -

1. The amount of work is not fixed. New services and goods exist that didn't exist 50 years ago. Look at how common it is for families to get take aways, eat in restaurants, own more than a small amount of clothes, get their nails done, etc. All of these create jobs that didn't used to exist.

We are also encouraged these days to replace perfectly good goods/clothes when at one time, people would have used stuff until it wore out. Again jobs are created to make stuff, trades people such as painters, etc. The expansion in healthcare has created lots of new jobs as well.

1. The cost of living has went up, but crucially what we purchase has also increased. People do live in better heated, decorated and furnished homes than they did 50-60 years ago - certainly amongst the working class they do. More people have cars or travel further in public transport. IMO people forget the abject poverty many working class people lived in 50-60 years ago.

1. People on average work less hours in the past. Someone always posts in response to this that their bank manage father worked less hours than they did - and it is true for some middle class jobs the hours and pay are worse. But for the majority of the population, working hours have decreased.

1. And yes women have always worked either in the home, or taking in piece work from outside. It is only middle class and upper class women (and the middle class was smaller) who for some decades did not work outside the home once they marry and some skilled working class women. But many women did still work.

I think I heard that at the start of the queens reign, 35% of women eligible to work i.e. right age, not too ill or disabled, were working outside the home.

First, like someone has pointed out, your assumption is that there is only a fixed amount of hours of work to be done in a country. Secondly, you are also assuming that all workers are equal. And that women entering the workforce replaces some of the men-hours. This is not true at all. A lot of industries still struggle, in this climate, to recruit staff. We are becoming more specialise in our professions, and that not all person-hours are actually equal.

Can anyone explain to me why the addition of women to the paid workforce did not result in decreased working hours for all?

From a business point of view, if you have (for example) job share you potentially end up with double the recruitment costs, double the training costs, and other additional expenses than if you employed one person full time for the same role (e.g. two laptops rather than one if it's a working from home professional role).

Of course, you may get favourable benefits by employing two part-time workers (e.g. longer tenure) but these tend to be intangible benefits versus the tangible costs.

The more people (be they men or women) you add to a labour market, the more money it will make as each person will spend in the economy. In theory.

Interesting link Bonsoir.

Wow, this is all really great. Thanks all. I'm afraid I'm following this thread whilst half supervising the children at one of those dreadful indoor play areas so my responses won't be as thoughtful as I'd like. The good news is that I'm on coffee #2 so everything should start making more sense soon!

Am I correct in then saying that capitalism is inherently anti feminist? Or have I missed the point?

Regarding care & community responsibilities I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that before the welfare state and paid carers the burden of caring for the sick and elderly fell mainly on female relatives and neighbours.

I had overlooked portofino and ComradeJing's point that the working class have always worked. I was thinking more of the women who would not usually have worked (or held very 'token' jobs before marriage) prior to WW2, the very sort who were encouraged to return back to the home after the war so the men could take 'their' jobs back.

Bonsoir - I shall have to save your link for later but thank you in advance.

Apologies as it's taken me forever to post the last message due to dodgy wifi. I've also missed a lot of posts out. I will read them all and return!

Firstly, women have always worked in paid employment - even when married with children.

Secondly, the types of jobs available change over time. E.g. I would guess that significantly fewer people are employed in manufacturing now than 60 years ago. Also, I'm sure there were no pizza delivery drivers 60 years ago!

Thirdly, a lot of people do work reduced hours and have more holidays than before WW2.

I would also imagine that 2 workers sharing one job has an impact. There are 2 people employed where one would have been previously. I would also imagine your point about childcare is right. If both parents are working, a market is created for childcare. Consequently, people are employed in that sector.

neverquitesure - Yes there are more paid jobs now looking after the old, sick and disabled that would have been largely done unpaid by women. These are mainly poorly paid jobs. Although of course lots of women do still do unpaid carer workv

neverquitesure I'm not well versed in history. But I was under the impression that the majority of people are working class. Most of these women will be in paid employment, be it as cleaners, govenors, cooks, wet nurse. Basically women's work.

Or if they are in a society that's more argricultural and/or tribal, then they'll be working the fields, providing communal day care, cooking, weaving etc. But their men won't really be in paid employment either.