any housewives out there?

happyandcontented

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

I'm afraid that's a very naive point of view and comes pretty close to victim blaming. Women generally aren't paid less than men because they haven't worked hard and made the best of their educational opportunities when younger.

I think that is a valid point, however, it is much less true today than it was 25 years ago or more. Times have changed for the better for women in the workplace. Where I work the whole of the senior team are women without exception. Younger women today do have many more options and if being a SAHM is not for them then they don't have to do it.

davidwood681

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

I'm afraid that's a very naive point of view and comes pretty close to victim blaming. Women generally aren't paid less than men because they haven't worked hard and made the best of their educational opportunities when younger.

Women aren't paid less than men (same job, experience, talent etc) anyway. It's a myth

Alikay

FBaby wrote: »

All the women I know who are SAHM are so either because they had little education/work experience, and their prospect of earning a decent income is limited, or they are those who just didn't want to work any longer and couldn't wait to have kids to be a SAHM.

That isn't the case most of the women I know. The bottom line is that children need to be parented. Child care helps, but it only covers some of a child's needs for some of the time, and this becomes more evident as family size increases. My husband travelled overseas a lot and so I gave up my career. Yes, he could've given up his, but frankly, a lot of the "women's work" that I did, would still have been my responsibility. Stuff like arranging healthcare appointments, household admin, cleaning, laundry, meal planning and shopping - although men may "help" :cool:, the ownership or project management of these jobs stills fall on women's shoulders most of the time. There isn't any real reason that they do...they just do! Most full-time working mums I've known are run ragged trying to manage everything. Full time working dads, less so IME.

The gender pay gap also affects things greatly - caring professions still pay much lower than STEM, despite the requirement for training and level of responsibility, and I'm not seeing many men rushing into those jobs in their droves.

JWM

jackieblack wrote: »

An absent parent might be providing financially, but that's not the same as raising a child IMO.
I'm sorry if some people find that offensive.

I don't find it offensive, merely ill-informed and rather sad to be honest.

You clearly have a massive chip on your shoulder about 'working mothers'. Time to educate yourself rather than continue to come out with this nonsense.

Alikay

davidwood681 wrote: »

Women aren't paid less than men (same job, experience, talent etc) anyway. It's a myth

They may earn the same money for the same job, but what about different but equivalent roles? A nurse does a 3 year degree, frequent ongoing training, works irregular hours and is responsible for peoples lives, yet earns less than a train driver - why? I know that both careers are open to both genders (or should I say, all genders :cool:) but the reality is that men are less attracted into caring professions for various reasons (money, perceived skills base, socialisation etc)

NBLondon

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

No, you misunderstand me.

What men don't get when they say they do the gardening, diy, car repairs etc whilst their partner does the cooking , childcare and cleaning is that their jobs can be occasional, able to be put off and even optional. With the possible exception of some cleaning, those "women's jobs" are unrelenting and have to be done every day, often several times a day, if not all day, for years.

Disaster doesn't strike if the lawn isn't mowed, the car goes unwashed or a room unpainted which is what happens when children are uncared for or there's no food to eat in the house.

You're still projecting your assumptions TT. Neither of us said anything about equivalence of the sets of tasks. An unwashed car isn't crucial - an undriveable car might be. A lawn that goes unmowed an extra week is not crucial; neither is an unhoovered spare room. It's up to each family unit to decide what is and isn't. Are you seriously trying to suggest that if the more feminine halves didn't buy/prepare food then all the male halves would look blank and not even think of KFC? (Sadly - that route does happen and not just as an emergency.)

davidwood681

Alikay wrote: »

They may earn the same money for the same job, but what about different but equivalent roles? A nurse does a 3 year degree, frequent ongoing training, works irregular hours and is responsible for peoples lives, yet earns less than a train driver - why? I know that both careers are open to both genders (or should I say, all genders :cool:) but the reality is that men are less attracted into caring professions for various reasons (money, perceived skills base, socialisation etc)

Who cares, they are different jobs and both genders have the choice to do what they want.
Supply and demand. If you don't understand that you need to step into the real world.


I could argue men do more dangerous jobs (so should earn more) because women don't want to do them. Why don't more women become oil rig workers, miners etc?

The value of a nurse is more to society than a footballer but that means nothing.

And you are born male of female, so you were right the first time :money:

Tabbytabitha

davidwood681 wrote: »

Women aren't paid less than men (same job, experience, talent etc) anyway. It's a myth

How to spectacularly miss the point!

NBLondon

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Unfortunately, one of the reasons that women earn less is because they're usually the ones who give up work to bring up the children so, as I said, round and round we go with little real change in the last half century.

I don't really see that as a genuine choice and that's why I find it depressing.

The gender pay gap is a lifetime average remember? Yes - the fact that some women/families choose to raise children affects it - but up to the age of 30 or so ceteris paribus the gender pay gap is in favour of those young women. As you prove - it isn't automatic that the woman is the lower earner before the first child. It's not actually a vicious circle - it just looks like it to some.

I'm afraid I think that propaganda and convention play just a big a role in women's domestic choices as biology and we're fooling ourselves by denying it.

Absolutely - for some women it is the biological drive over everything - but for others the social pressures are the strongest.

Alikay wrote: »

The gender pay gap also affects things greatly - caring professions still pay much lower than STEM, despite the requirement for training and level of responsibility, and I'm not seeing many men rushing into those jobs in their droves.

And that answers it's own question... If those professions pay lower, they are less attractive to many people for whom pay is the strongest driver.

Alikay wrote: »

They may earn the same money for the same job, but what about different but equivalent roles? A nurse does a 3 year degree, frequent ongoing training, works irregular hours and is responsible for peoples lives, yet earns less than a train driver - why? I know that both careers are open to both genders (or should I say, all genders :cool:) but the reality is that men are less attracted into caring professions for various reasons (money, perceived skills base, socialisation etc)

The pure capitalist view is - of course - that the only true measure of equivalence is what someone is willing to pay for that service. (Like the infamous Birmingham council "dinnerladies" are equivalent to "binmen" argument). I'm sure most would say that nursing skills are of greater value to society than train driving skills - but how do you quantify it? And so back to the original point... how do you quantify the contribution of the homemakers and the members of the family unit? The only objective one available to us is what would it cost to purchase that contribution at market rates?

humptydumptybits

clairec79 wrote: »

I also think there is a massive difference between a housewife years ago which was a physically demanding job (and much more time consuming) - all that washing by hand, sweeping the floors, beating rugs etc compared to sticking a load in the washing maching and running the hoover round

The majority of the work can and is done simultaneously, so while the washing machine cleans your clothes you may be doing the washing up or preparing tea - you can'd then claim all that more than once in the same time period - to me the time I (or other half let's be honest here it's his washing machine) spend on the washing is taking it from the laundry basket (kids know if it's not in there it doesn't get done), putting it into the machine, then taking it out hanging it on the line, then the time bringing it back in, so 5 minutes for each part - not several hours including the time the machine and the wind do their part (I didn't include ironing in there)

My eldest was 20 when my youngest was born. I remember going to a meet up with the mums I had gone to antenatal with. They were all saying how hard it all was. I had to say that with disposable nappies, a washing machine and tumble dryer, a fridge and freezer and a car I couldn't believe how easy it was compared to 20 years earlier. All these women had the same labour saving devices I had and they couldn't even imagine life where you hand washed or went to the launderette, had buckets of nappies soaking and in winter the joy of them draped round the house to try and get them dry and shopping daily as you needed to with no fridge.


I think it is sad that people regard playing with their children or reading them a book as work.