Citizen's Advice lists requiring all employees to work full time as an example of indirect sex discrimination, so by advertising part time jobs you may be protecting yourself.

Interesting, could you link to that and/or explain it, against whom is it sex discrimination.

I know that in the UK the "wage gap" favours women in part-time work according to the National Statistics Office .

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discriminat... Under "Indirect sex discrimination"

Having read that now, I'm still not sure who it's supposed to be discriminating against?

If a parent, say, gets refused part-time hours, how does their sex alter the effect of that refusal?

Women are more likely to desire part time hours because they are always the ones who are getting pregnant and typically the ones raising small children.

Isn't it a private matter for a woman to decide whether to raise a child or not - regardless of the common good child rearing brings - assuming women raise children is wrong, and sexist too.

There's statutory parental leave to cover pregnancy already.

To mimic your response: men are the ones with the muscles, they are _typically_ stronger therefore we should discriminate.

Seems wrong.

(I'm just returning to my former work as my last child enters institutional schooling, and am male. There's a lot of discrimination here.)

> assuming women raise children is wrong, and sexist too.

I have no need to assume this because this is actually the case. This is reality today. When women stop being the primary ones raising the children then there will no longer be a need to be protections aiding them in finding part time work, but that is for some hypothetical future.

Thanksatron.

I think you mean "requiring all employees to work full time..."

Yes, edited.