To think this is scandalous yet in plain sight because the patriarchy has no shame

Nothing 'fortunate' about receiving the bare minimum of £350 in maintenance for the child that you parent the majority of the time.

I get £11 via CMS per month for twins - he also has 4 other children by his first wife - because he is on UC.

All the while, he works cash in hand, goes on 3 foreign holidays a year, buys himself the latest tech/gadgets and is apparently out several times a week, eating out with his much younger girlfriend.

Strangely, I'm not actually bitter and I absolutely do not jump on any resident parent who receives a fair amount of maintenance.

I just think "Crazycatlady", you have 2 beautiful, glorious children (and 4 wonderful former step-children, whose Mum I get along with and whose lives you are still involved in), but MY GOD, why did you have to choose such an arrant fucktard as a Sperm Donor (Father)?!"

@ThisOldThang

I didn’t say “a man couldn’t do it for a day”. I said “I don’t know a man who could do it for a day”. It doesn’t matter a jot if strangers tell me they can. I don’t know them from Adam. I’m not denying their experience, I have merely stated my own, and I stand by my statement. No man that I know personally could do it for a day.

You have no experience of parenting any child older than a toddler, so you can’t say whether it’s easy or not to parent any child older than a toddler. But you seem strangely adamant that you are correct. I suspect if you remember this thread in ten years time, you might feel a bit of a wally.

Regarding your other points, re mental load and stuff you do around the house - you are spectacularly missing the point that you currently SHARE that load with your wife. If you were doing it alone you’d not only be doubling your workload, but you’d carry the additional weight of knowing that there was nobody there to catch the falling plates when you drop them. It’s all on you, every bit of it. Every minute of every day. It’s an enormous load, and the fact that you’re so utterly dismissive of that shows you haven’t got a clue.

@YOYOK

A completely fair comment and it's not been my intention to derail the thread - but the casual sexism, insults and ludicrous assertions have, IMHO, needed to be challenged.

It’s really unhelpful to have men derail the thread when they’re not single parenting. I wouldn’t have an issue if a man was explaining how he financially managed after separation but this isn’t the case. A man working full time and a woman part time with no childcare costs and both contributing to ONE household has nothing to do with the issue of how parents financially navigate 2 homes and parenting their children.

@ThisOldThang

I wouldn't have bothered starting anywhere.

It's tedious and you're boring.

You've got some hurty feelings because we aren't all bowing down to you for being amazing, when you're simply average.

You don't need anyone on here to inflate your ego for you, seems someone, somewhere, has done a good enough job of that already.

You don't get it because you have a partner there taking care of all the shit that you don't do while you're off wagging your willy in the mirror and telling yourself that women all hate you for no reason at all.

Bore off.

They're sleeping happily while my wife works late. Zero drama.

In the words of my favorite mumsnet man, who is sadly no longer with us - LOL.
Not going to pretend I've read that whole spiel, but the dedication to putting us ladies right is admirable. Must have taken ages. Hope your kids are alright.

Where do I even start with all the (bigoted man) hatred, misrepresentations and lies about what I've said?

@Anonym00se
a) Our lived experiences are bollocks.
* I never commented on anybody's lived experience. I have been replying to man hating posts that claimed 'a man couldn't even do it for a day' and other such tripe. There has been a single dad commenting to say that he managed just fine on their own. I guess his lived experience means nothing once your man hating is in full flow.

b) Our extortionate childcare costs were/are “hypothetical”.
\* My family's childcare costs are hypothetical. I never claimed to speak for anybody else. I notice you do, through, with your use of 'our'.

c) Children over the age of 2 are EASY(!!) to raise single-handedly, despite this poster’s only experience being a few hours a day when his wife was working - and even then for only a few days at a time. And never having to deal with a suicidal teen, or two teens that eat you out of house and home, or an autistic 12 year old that’s school refusing, or all of the above plus having to work 9-5.30 then pick up the kids and take them home, feed them, do homework, and get them to bed before you can even begin the housework - every day, forever.
\* I never commented on raising them single-handedly. I was replying to @Kinshipug that said that dad's need the help of Saint Mum 'to facilitate their attempts at trying/pretending to do half'.

d) Children are CHEAP to raise - if you live in Scandinavia where childcare costs tuppence ha’penny per month, or you deprive your children of the means to complete their schoolwork and dress them from charity shops and never take them for days out.
* Why the lies? I commented on the supposed average cost of £950-£1050 p/m per child. I absolutely stand by my assertion that this average is distorted by childcare costs, private school fees, university costs, ponies, etc. Mums have also commented to say that figure is bullshit because for their three children it is more than the family's entire take home salary. I guess their lived experiences can be discarded as well...

e) that 15% of a father’s is plenty if the state make up the rest in UC. So a man’s kids are the responsibility of the taxpayer, not the man.
\* Maybe you need to actually read what I've written? I said that given how generous the UK's UC payments are for single RPs, is 15% of NET salary actually that bad? The OP is getting £360 p/m in maintenance. She is equally responsible for funding her child, so that suggests a total expenditure of £720 p/m on top of all the benefits that the OP is claiming*. £720 is way more than we spend on both our children. When you factor in the Child Benefit of £115 per month, it is only £100 less than that magic 'average' figure of £950 that is being tossed around. Is the OP really being oppressed by the patriarchy or is it actually a fairly reasonable amount when seen as a top-up to UC?

Before you start throwing insults regarding childcare costs, I have repeatedly said that NRP should pay 50% of the RP's childcare costs.

@FatmanandKnobbin

I do think that the mythical 'mental load' is massively overblown on mumsnet. It is usually mundane shit that normal people just do - e.g. meal planning, buying shoes, replying to a party invitation, taking a child to the doctor, etc.

I also do consider my children much easier to look after now they're able to speak, understand instructions, walk without smashing their heads into coffee tables and all that early toddler stuff. Why the insistence that it's so, so, very difficult?

I would say you are one of those arsehole dad's, the worst kind actually because you seem to want a medal for doing less than the minimum for your own kids.

To be honest, I'm starting to think that maybe I'm doing too much. My assertions that I change sheets, buy kid's shoes, clothes, nappies, stock a fridge, plan some dinners, etc, is met with claims that I must be lying! Fucking hell.... You all must be really, really shit at picking partners, if you can't believe that a man is actually capable of taking ownership of these mundane tasks. Get this, I also do 100% of the driving because my wife finds it 'too stressful'. Does that count as 'mental load' for me?

But of course, only Saint Mum can ever contribute to running a home!

__

@NonPlayerCharacter

It's almost funny how a person can poo poo looking after any child over the age of 2 as easy and not realise that this is a glaring sign that they either don't do it to any significant level or are truly shite at it.

Or maybe you're just shit at it, if you find it that difficult? Just a thought that seems it could be as equally valid as your insult.
_

@notbelieved

You haven't said how recently you needed wraparound care, but given that salary and having three kids you'd now qualify for absolutely shitloads of UC and free childcare hours. Would you care to share your actual 'take home' money? If this happened recently, I suspect it would actually be the equivalent of earning £60k+ when you factor in housing benefit, etc.

_

@XChrome Welcome to the party. Please read the thread and it might make more sense rather than just relying upon @Anonym00se's misrepresentations of what I've actually said.

Yes, that's what they are mansplaining to us. How unreasonable of us to be sceptical of their uninformed and often quite fantastical beliefs. It must be because we're bitter hags who hate men and wear sensible shoes.

The fact he used the phrase ‘hands on’ says it all. Never heard a mother described that way!

The kids are still wearing hand-me-down clothing from their cousins. I appreciate not everybody has that available, but we're the sort of people that would happily buy children's clothes at jumble sales, charity shops, etc. My eldest son wears second hand school uniform (immaculate and only £1 an item). We buy Clarke's shoes in the sales (£22.50 for the last pair). Our biggest regular expense is currently weekly swimming lessons

Yeah. Good for you. When my ex left I needed wraparound care for 3 children at a cost of around £900 a month and a starting teacher’s salary that was then £21k or around £1.2k a month. So get real about what children cost. You might be fine on £97k but your wife paying childcare so she can earn her £49k won’t be.

Unless he's an idiot he knows that pregnancy is a risk when you have sex.

He has the choice to abstain.

Have you asked them all personally?

It's almost funny how a person can poo poo looking after any child over the age of 2 as easy and not realise that this is a glaring sign that they either don't do it to any significant level or are truly shite at it.

Considering you think the mental load is crap and you can just chill at home with kids because they aren't a bother past the age of 2, I would say you are one of those arsehole dad's, the worst kind actually because you seem to want a medal for doing less than the minimum for your own kids.

Inserting yourself into a conversation that isn't even remotely relevant to your situation and then telling women, who are in the situation, that they are wrong, further confirms your status.

The literal definition of a mediocre man, who thinks he's above average (and starts typing out a tedious word salad to 'prove it').

But this post isn't about couples or those who separate and pay for their kids/have them 50/50 so none of what you are saying is in any way relevant to the circumstances of a single parent who's ex isn't paying for their child is it?

So let’s get this straight. We’ve got men, from two-income households, who have NEVER ever been a single parent and have no authority on the subject of bringing up children ALONE telling us:

a) Our lived experiences are bollocks.
b) Our extortionate childcare costs were/are “hypothetical”.
c) Children over the age of 2 are EASY(!!) to raise single-handedly, despite this poster’s only experience being a few hours a day when his wife was working - and even then for only a few days at a time. And never having to deal with a suicidal teen, or two teens that eat you out of house and home, or an autistic 12 year old that’s school refusing, or all of the above plus having to work 9-5.30 then pick up the kids and take them home, feed them, do homework, and get them to bed before you can even begin the housework - every day, forever.
d) Children are CHEAP to raise - if you live in Scandinavia where childcare costs tuppence ha’penny per month, or you deprive your children of the means to complete their schoolwork and dress them from charity shops and never take them for days out.
e) that 15% of a father’s is plenty if the state make up the rest in UC. So a man’s kids are the responsibility of the taxpayer, not the man.

There you go again. 🙄

Yes, definitely it's my prejudices. You, a man, couldn't possibly be wrong.

You're making huge assumptions based upon your 'all men are evil' prejudices.

Lost earnings would only apply if my wife wanted to work, but couldn't due to childcare responsibilities. She doesn't want to work. There's a big difference, so her lost earnings are just hypothetical.

I look after my kids and i know what's involved. As somebody said up thread, there's never, ever, a day off from being a parent. I really felt that during the first two years of being a parent combined with COVID. My wife is a key worker and she returned to work part time and i had to work from home and look after our eldest son during the lockdowns - and no i couldn't just take time off. Last week, our kids didn't see their mother between Wednesday evening and Saturday morning due to her work commitments. I did full parenting for those two days. I know the women of Mumsnet love to make out it's just impossible for useless men to do, due to all that 'mental load', but don't bullshit a bullshiter, it's really not that hard once the kids are 2+ years old.

I'm sure there are some men that leave everything 100% up to their wives and they wouldn't be able to cope on their own. Those men are either working crazy hours to provide for their families and have an agreement that that's the way things are or they're arseholes. Through our NCT group, I'd say that i do know one of those arseholes. He's an exception, though. All the other dads in the group are hands on and regularly care for their kids when the mums book weekends away, etc.

Great, still irrelevant. This post is not about nrp who are paying their way and looking after their kids. Its about the ones who are walking away from their responsibilities, snd whether/how they should be made to provide for their kids.

It is their choice, yes. But men should not be so dismissive of women's contributions. You cannot say kids "only cost £6k" when in actual fact they are costing whatever his wife would have made at work or whatever nursery would have cost. He had previously announced to us all that he was to look after his kids on Thursday, but not one has he mentioned that his wife does it 3 times a week every week.
It is also disingenuous of men to blame the patriarchy (do they not what it means?) for they can't (wont) go part time when they can evidently afford to.
We are getting off topic a bit here, but it's just another example of how men don't actually appreciate what it means to be the primary parent.
This is a man who previously stated that his wife "contributes". Really sounds like she actually does most of it, plus earns proportionately more. Who is really "contributing" in that household?

Of course. The point is that the mother is more than likely covering way more than half the costs, and it should be the nrp NOT the taxpayer who are covering the other half. If nrps were made to fully cover half the cost of their kids it would save the government a lot, so why is it a large amount are left to walk away paying bare minimum if anything and let the state pick up the pieces?

As a couple they can make a decision that works for them as a family.
What a family decides to do is entirely up to them (both work full time, both work part time, one work full time and one stay home, one work full time and one work part time and any other combination)
It's their choice
When a relationship breaks down each party decides for themselves
You can't insist your ex works full time or part time that is up to them (regardless of.if its male or female)

What ever income you had as a family will also be less on both sides as expenses double with having to run 3 homes so the reality is that if you separate both the parents will be worse off.

Doubling down on why think 3 days of childcare has no value or cost is not a good look.
Why can't you take a day off? You can obviously afford it since your kids cost you so little.