Things getting worse for young women?

Wonderful grannyactivist. OH worked VERY long hours, so could not step up to the mark as you describe- but his moral support and hands on as much as poss was remarkable in different ways. I know many women who returned to study or work who had nothing but horrible trouble from their husband, and were made to feel guilty, inadequate, selfish, etc, etc, etc- by their men. Many ended up separating- tragically.

Should we then say that mothers should not do either- because the children will suffer if the men are not prepared to help make it work? If we do, then ...!?!

The senior lecturer who asked me what my husband thought about me going back to full time study at uni- did apologise later, and told me she thought I needed to know some men (education Rita) just get very jealous, and just cannot cope with a woman trying to 'grow', etc- and were just not able or willing to change and adapt to enable this. Several of the women who were at Uni with me were ledt by their husband during or right after the course. One husband dumped his wife on the day or her finals, out of spite- telling her he'd been having an affair for 2 years. She went to her exams, and got a 2.1 instead of a 1st- and fell apart temporarily afterwards. His cared not a jot for the effect on their 2 young children either. B****rd!

The answer is almost bound to be no though!

JessM, I dont understand your question.

Would he have supported you 100%?

To answer your question from a couple of days ago granjura, yes. When I returned to study my husband was a much better household manager than I had been. He washed, ironed, shopped, cooked, did all the housework AND he took himself off to the mother of our daughters' friend and learned how to do French braids. What's more he did it all without ever intimating that he was 'helping' me; he took the view then, as he does now, that we are a team and our roles are fluid dependent upon current circumstances.

Boy, do I love that man.

The firm where our DD1 was a Senior manager when she had GC1 was well-known for enabling women to return to work gradually and part-time after having children. But this was not available for senior managers- you just can't lead a top project with a large team, when part-time. And in many professions, if you stay away from the top for more than 1 year- you can forget it as far as professional progression goes.

So, soontobe it's their own silly fault? Is that your point?

BTW if you look at the date on my OP... it was kindly given CPR by worthit

More flexible working hours, yes.

Average working hours substantially reduced - that would make the country economically much poorer, so I dont agree with that.

I have been thinking about your post. In homes where both parents are out of work, and maybe the man does as much parenting and as the woman, I havent seen feminism emanate from there. Why not? Perhaps in some way, they already have equality?

[I realise that this has nothing to do with the op, but no one is replying to that].

Women will be trapped in domestication - and unable to be fully independent - if their role is seen purely as a childminding/caring one.

I believe that what we need is shorter and more flexible working hours so that both parents can pursue a career and play a meaningful part in their children's lives. It is high time that average working hours are substantially reduced so that infants are not stuck in nurseries from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. every day.

Measures that are designed to encourage women (and some of the posts on here refer specifically to women) to stay at home and focus on child rearing will consign them to a caring role and discourage them from pursuing a career, being self-supporting and following their own interests.

I can only find a Daily Mail link
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2979456/Young-singers-models-WAGs-win-followers-women-men-sports-stars-politicans-academics.html

On social media, women, especialy young ones, are choosing to follow, singers, WAGS, and models.
Meanwhile, young men are following sports stars, acedemics and politicians.

Yes, the BBC programme referred to in the OP was broadcast almost a year ago, and ....?

Admittedly we now can't hear the programme but we can still read its description which reads :
From bomb threats sent to campaigners for more females on banknotes to sexually explicit pop videos. From extreme laddism at universities to rape jokes in the school yard... Kirsty Wark explores whether there's a new culture abroad in which it's acceptable to write about, talk about, and feature women in a sexually offensive, even abusive way. Or whether the female of the species just needs to 'man up', learn to enjoy a gag, and get used to the 21st century world.

Does anyone have any views on this?

I agree. As long as the provision of child care is seen as the only thing to do then nothing will change. What can be done to support women to stay at home and look after their children? Surely there are more imaginative and flexible ways to do this? It's a massive subject!

Of course- I totally agree- but .... as long as it is a real choice, and not imposed by 'society or expectations'.

"and let other who?" look after the children during the war granjura - women of course! Paid employment outside the home should not necessarily be the gold standard or only way for women to think they are valuable. I say that as one who always did work but often wished I didn't have to when the children were very young.

QED of course.

Who on earth said 'equality = the same' - of course we are all different- and of course women do tend to have traits men do not have, and vice-versa. But here comes that huge debate- where does nature and nurture start and end. Nurture is a huge part of it- so many research studies have shown this, how babies are treated VERY differently, even today, from birth.

Not, there arent' masses of jobs vacant- but then why should the jobs available automatically go to the men? Ok if it is a REAL choice, and I do believe nurture/society/expectations and more, mean it isn't- but not as an automatic response. So women were perfectly able to do 'mens' jobs during the war (and they certainly did prove that) and let others look after the children whilst they did so- but not when there is no war on.

CQFD- forgotten the Latin (English) version Anno.

I'm with soontobe on this. Women do have far more choices than they used to. Men don't have a monopoly on sheer stupidity -girls and young women can be daft enough to present themselves like porn stars if they want to and take the risks that opens them to.
To get to my point: basically, men and women are not androgenous interreplaceable entities. We're animals and females are just plain different from males. Not better or worse just different. Females are more oriented to caring for their young than males are. That's just the way it is. Its nature. Obviously there are some men who manage children very well and some women who don't but these are minorities. We do have more choices. One of them is to encourage politicians to enable the development of stable, content families. More usefully by economic means other than getting mothers back to work asap. Its not like we've got masses of vacant jobs anyway.

Just realised the BBC programme referred to in the OP was broadcast almost a year ago!

Thinking about this some more. Without sharing here with anyone, but just between you and the lamp-post, and in total honesty, how would your OH have reacted if you had said when your kids started primary school :
'it's time for me now- I want to go back to my career or studying, full-time- and that means YOU will have to step up to the mark and take your full-share of the responsibilities with the children, their actitivities, and the household chores?'

Would he have supported you 100%?

FarNorth- perhaps because child care is often the key?

Soontobe, yes in many ways women have more choices then men.

I had the choice to go back to Uni to study and build my own career. Had I chosen to stay at home and never contribute financially and otherwise, it would have been my choice too. Those who looked at me strangely and questioned my decisions were not the men (be they friends or neighbours) but the women (most of whom went to have a 'surprise' 3rd and therefore remained at home). Women can be their own enemies, and the enemies of other women who make different choices- sadly.

One reason I love 'Educating Rita'- fortunately my OH couldn't have been more different in his attitude than her stupid husband. When I went for interview at Uni- one woman who knew my husband professionally asked me 'and what does your husband think about you going back to Uni with two small children. Surely he's got enough on his plate!'.

Women have choices though. It has always been like this in my opinion. You choose to follow the crowd, or you dont.

Just in case anyone says that's not important, if the government think this little of women, why should men as a whole think any better?

falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/how-85-of-tax-and-benefit-savings-have-been-at-the-expense-of-women

I quite agree, FarNorth!

Why is everyone going on about childcare again? That is not what the link in the OP is about.