Under the headline: "Women are working longer than men" The Telegraph then says:

In 1992, 7.8 per cent of women were working at least 45 hours a week.
That figure had risen in 2006 to 9.1 per cent, or one in 11. The
equivalent figure for men has gone down from 33.4 per cent to 27.5 per
cent, said the Office for National Statistics.

As those are the only comparative male and female figures they give the headline should of course read " Men still working longer than women".

Abbey Bank (and I can’t find that actual paper on their site) also released figures:

The figures on working hours were published as a
report said most people in Britain had just 16 hours of "true" leisure
time per week and would want at least £20 an hour to work on their day
off.

Leisure, which includes everything from
socialising and excursions to relaxing at home with friends and family,
costs around £8.11 per hour.

Now, the truly interesting question would be to ask whether that 16 hour figure was rising or falling? From the academic research (not banks polling 1,000 people) we find that leisure hours for both men and women have been rising ever since anyone actually started to count them. Which rather puts paid to this idea that we’re all working more hours, doesn’t it?

The secret is that women’s paid working hours in the labour force have been rising, while those of men have been declining. But the number of unpaid labour hours required to keep the household functioning have been falling faster, leaving more time for leisure.

We are not working harder than our parents or our grandparents. We’re working less, for we have more leisure.