Men and women's working hours are nearly equal.

[FloralBunting]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53558250

I'm not fabulous at statisical stuff, but I looked at the bar graph in this report and it still looked like women do more unpaid work than men, who do less childcare and also spend more time watching telly and on other leisure activities.

And yet the title is that 'men and women's working hours are nearly equal'.

I think that the article is trying to references that the gap has got smaller, but even so. I think the title is rather misleading given the graph. Am I misunderstanding something that is actually very good here?

I think it's not counting childcare as work! Is that actually possible in 2020? I thought scientists copped on that childcare is work in the fucking 1960s. Someone tell me I've got this wrong!

Also these time use studies don't actually give a useful accounting of leisure time - women tend to have "leisure time" in 20 minute dribs and drabs, enough time to make a cup of tea and not drink it, when men get to take whole days and evenings to pursue their hobbies.

This is the bit that stood out to me...

• Since the 1970s, women have increased their paid working hours by more than five hours to 22 per week, and have cut unpaid hours, which include childcare duties and household chores, by almost three.

Meanwhile, men have cut their paid hours by more than eight to 34 per week. The number of unpaid hours worked has increased by more than five a week.*

So for women, 5 more paid, three less unpaid = 3 more working hours a week

For men, 8 less paid, 5 more unpaid = 3 less working hours a week.

So despite it seeming positive, it just means that women are increasing their total workload while men reduce theirs

Thank you! That's what I thought I was reading, but the Beeb are presenting it as jolly good news for equality, what!

The whole report is framed in an utterly sexist way and the bbc are reporting it in a parrot fashion without asking any questions about it.

This is what institutionalised sexism looks like.

But women should feel better about being more equal in the workplace... Ffs

Here's the Time's version, with a somewhat biased headline

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-men-are-doing-more-housework-than-ever-hs56pfs5v?shareToken=68d48032e8b79b2a0b5173b81f295309

Thank you! That's what I thought I was reading, but the Beeb are presenting it as jolly good news for equality, what!

The way they have measured it, women work less hours so women increasing their working hours means "equality." Sexism in time use studies is a major issue though - not counting childcare as work is the most blatant version of such sexism.

The Times seems to be including childcare eg

The research suggests that women spend 51 hours a week at work or on household chores and childcare while men spend 50 hours a week.

The bbc seems to have those figures the other way round so one or other must be wrong.

I have no idea if the figures are accurate, but assuming they are the important figure seem to me to be that overall women do 51 hours of work a week, while men do 50. That’s pretty close.

Men do spend more time watching TV, but women spend more time socialising.

I’m not sure I can see where all the outrage is coming from.

... of course I’m assuming the figures are correct - which in my experience is a big assumption - and that I’ve read them correctly.

The problem is that the non-working hours for women are likely to be less leisure focussed for women than men.

"Invisible women" had some good information about it - for example, commuting takes longer for women, because it's set up for a man's typical day (transport goes from outer city to city centre for example). Women are much more likely to have to do school drop off, which isn't in the city centre, so travels to school then to their office along a worse transport route, then stops at a supermarket which isn't on a direct route home so increases their commute. The commute isn't working hours, but does deduct from leisure time

alias, really not sure I appreciate the suggestion that I'm expressing 'outrage' by querying the framing of the BBC article when the graphs used by them don't really indicate equality.

@FloralBunting
Sorry for hyperbolic language. It wasn’t really addressed to you anyway.

I must be reading the graphs wrong - to me they look almost equal: if you add up paid work, unpaid work, and childcare the hours look similar.

It looks the same with leisure. If you add personal care, TV, socialising, and other leisure the hours are approximately equal.

Either I’m missing something - which i admit is possible - or these figures are quite positive.

Once again I’d like to know how the figures we’re reached.

Thanks for the apology. At least you didn't say hysteria

See, I'm seeing the breakdown between paid and unpaid there, and I'm seeing men having more paid work and women doing more unpaid work than men. I mean, you can sort of shuffle it all together and come out with parity on the bare numbers, but how is it equality if women are doing more unpaid work than men? I mean, the BBC analysis here just looks puddle deep.

It's interesting.
The story is actually men are nearly doing the same amount of work as women, now they have started doing more "unpaid work" (excluding childcare).
For some reason () that can't be stated clearly, instead it has to be implied women are closing the gap on men because they are doing more paid work.
I'd like to see an actual total of men vs women, work vs leisure

I see where you’re coming from now. Yes, unpaid work is still undervalued of course.

At least it’s heading in the right direction, even if very slowly.

The reason I think the figures are reasonably positive is that women used to do many more hours work altogether, while these figures suggest things are more equal in that respect.

Here's a link to the actual report:

www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/07/The-time-of-your-life.pdf

Glancing at it quickly, it strikes me that it is covering ages 18-64, which would have a big smoothing-out effect on the differential unpaid work during the child-rearing years.

Found it on Resolution Foundation website.
Men do 48% of all work. Women do 52%. I thought recieved wisdom post brexit was that was a very significant margin.

Screenshots attached. The report is a pdf here
www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/the-time-of-your-life/

@FloralBunting

Thanks for the apology. At least you didn't say hysteria

See, I'm seeing the breakdown between paid and unpaid there, and I'm seeing men having more paid work and women doing more unpaid work than men. I mean, you can sort of shuffle it all together and come out with parity on the bare numbers, but how is it equality if women are doing more unpaid work than men? I mean, the BBC analysis here just looks puddle deep.

I'm not sure I would make the statement that it's necessary to equality that men and women do the very same proportion of paid vs unpaid work.

I'm not sure if it would be ever likely to see that when you consider that you have to fit things like maternity leaves in there - that will always skew the proportions.

I'm more concerned that men and women are working in a fair proportion, and that if women do less paid work and more unpaid work, they are still financially secure.

Goose, well your last paragraph is exactly why I would query the purported equality being lauded here.

I'm still not seeing how anyone can spin women doing more unpaid work than men as equality. I mean, yes, remuneration is not the only gauge of how worthwhile work is, obviously I agree with that. But equality literally means equal, so if unpaid work is so very worthwhile, then how come relatively few blokes are embracing it eagerly?

The story is actually men are nearly doing the same amount of work as women, now they have started doing more "unpaid work" (excluding childcare). For some reason (hmm) that can't be stated clearly, instead it has to be implied women are closing the gap on men because they are doing more paid work.

Wait, what the actual fuck? The BBC reported the numbers the wrong way round! They reported men are doing more work than women (hence me thinking the Resolution Foundation were not counting childcare as work - I could see the graphs didn't support the BBC's reported numbers.)

Combine that misreporting with the odd slant in the BBC story that women are closing the gap on men, and what you have is an article that gives the impression that historically, men have done more work than women, but now women are catching up. This is the exact opposite of the truth.

Fucking hell, BBC. What MRA wrote this?

Just heard Lindsey Judd from Resolution Foundation talking about this. Men doing more but still half of that of women with regards housework and parenting.

She said it was going in the right direction, but not anywhere near there yet. Also said that the earlier men were involved in childcare, the more they did later.

As far as leisure time goes, this is taken up with parenting, so even though less work being done, it isn't going on pleasure leisure (no idea how to put that).

It didn't sound as positive when you heard her speak.

I find it quite strange that they are reporting straight averages across the 18-64 age group. It's essentially meaningless as everything just comes out in the wash. You'll have childless women in their 20s/30s and empty nester SAHMs masking the reality of working mums.

There's one chart in the report that shows for 2 full time working parents, the woman in the relationship is doing 66% of the childcare and 59% of unpaid work. That's the issue right there.

Wait, what the actual fuck? The BBC reported the numbers the wrong way round! They reported men are doing more work than women (hence me thinking the Resolution Foundation were not counting childcare as work - I could see the graphs didn't support the BBC's reported numbers.)

Well tbf the resolution Foundation haven't helped. They say they've included childcare as unpaid work but then split it out on the tables. It does actually make a difference due to the disparity in time spent.
If you exclude childcare as work then men "work" more. And if you exclude childcare as "work" you are showing an unconscious bias and lack of value attributed to care.

^mothers have had larger absolute increases (from 36 to 92 minutes per day). This is the case even though mothers have also increased their hours of paid work. Parents in the highest income quartile today spend the most time
in childcare as a primary activity, while parents in the lowest income group spend the least amount of time. It remains the case that there is more variation in childcare time by income among women than among men.^
This is interesting, comparing the time women spend on childcare now to in the 70s. I wonder what's driving that. Has more available time been a driver behind the more child-centric parenting practices of the past few years?

Well tbf the resolution Foundation haven't helped. They say they've included childcare as unpaid work but then split it out on the tables. It does actually make a difference due to the disparity in time spent.

I think there's a valid reason for splitting out childcare in this case - it's one of the most important trends to examine, especially when it comes to the gender split. Maybe the Resolution Foundation could have made it a bit clearer but the misreporting here is all down to the BBC, and they have produced an article that isn't just misleading but actually false.