To feel sad some women are forced to go back to work

wonder why father’s priorities don’t change?

Yeah, but you don't mean 'one partner' do you?

You mean the woman should give up her financial independence, waste her education and have no life outside the home in order to make herself and her children completely dependent on a man.

Don't you?

@BananaPeels I understand, but can equally understand how a partner may feel it is unfair if what was agreed is then reneged upon.

Interesting replies to this post. I think the original thought process was around women having to go back to work (insinuating that some aren’t really interested in doing this and would rather raise their children at home). Surely everyone can see that would be sad, lots of other things are sad in the world but the OP was just raising this particular example. Lots of women seem to find that offensive for some reason. Ironically they then reference women’s rights but then instantly say that unless
you are doing paid work then it has no importance or respectful purpose. …seems very un-feminist in its nature.

I feel that women are often sold the dream of ‘doing it all’ it’s a feminist trope thrown around. Often women have to work a hell of a lot harder to still end up burdened with more work than their male counterparts. The job, the cleaning, mental loads of birthdays Christmas anniversaries etc etc, shopping, school picks ups and drop offs, clubs…the list is endless. It’s not the 1950’s to admit or genuinely enjoy being a SAHM, to simplify and slow down. For instance, my husband didn’t ask me to give up my career / hopes and dreams, but equally when I said that I found more purpose in being with our children and in the home, he understood and supports that for our family. He wouldn’t expect me to work full time and also do everything else and be super stressed out. I rarely see families (obviously there are some!) whereby the man and woman do a clear 50 50.

Sorry not RTFT but we live in a very different world. Women AND men can look after the whole family in many facets

What a ridiculous conclusion….

Of course they can! I know many mothers who built up their careers in their 20s and early 30s, earning large salaries and traveling the world on business trips. When they chose to have children, their priorities changed! It’s not that hard to understand, is it??

Yes, obviously if only one partner earns a salary then the other is dependant on them. That’s why it’s important to choose your partner carefully and, importantly, have the education and skills necessary to succeed on your own if needed. Ideally, both partners should spend time building up their careers before one of them choosing to give theirs up for the benefit of the family

So women shouldn’t have a career ? It’s not the 1950’s!

Maybe we should stop girls doing math, science, English etc. at school and teach lessons on how to bag a husband, how to darn socks, how to clean etc.

Maybe we should start teaching daughters how to keep a man happy?

As the years go on i feel the world is going backwards

So why can't the man stay home and the woman go and use her skills and bring money in?

Let's face it, by 'one partner taking care of the home' you mean the woman don't you?

The problem with this 'division of labour' is that only one partner is financially rewarded. That makes the other partner, invariably a woman, entirely dependent on him. It also means the woman will have little to fall back on once the children are grown and no longer need her.

There's a reason women rejected this 'division of labour'. Many reason.

Your grandmother’s DH sounds lovely. There’s always been good and bad DHs around. Just because your great grandfather was abusive, it doesn’t mean that was the norm. My great grandfathers were certainly not like that

??? The point is not abuse. The point is, you are not understanding that, overall, only a proportion of women were actually free to stay home and actually look after their kids themselves and enjoy being with them. I think the confusion lies in that the vast majority of women didn’t hold ‘wage’ jobs, it was pin money cash for tasks, unlike with men. Also, there were no nurseries to pop their kids in, but they did leave them with neighbours or their older children so they could earn necessary money. However, they were not at home looking after their kids in the way you are making out was the norm. Again, it’s no different to today where the majority of women need to leave their kids in care to earn money for the family to keep heads above water. Just like there were some women back then in more fortunate circumstances that didn’t have to do this, there are those women now, but fundamentally there is no real change.

Many men appreciate if their partner takes care of the children and house. This can be a very efficient set up, with one partner focusing on building up their career while the other takes care of the home and family. It can be a win win situation for both!

It’s based on the economic principle of ‘division of labour’

To be sad that women of today are working for pay as mothers have always done with only the tiniest, very privileged minority staying home without working for pay.

Fixed your question for you.

So what if the woman has 4 children each 5 years apart the tax payer should just pay them to stay home for 20 years.

Bloody hell, you seem to have an unrealistic view of what ‘the olden days’ were for most people.

One of my grandmothers had to work to feed/house/clothe the family because her DH was fond of pissing his pay packet away (literally) on pay day each week. He’d come home and bash her up if he didn’t have a nice hot meal on the table or if he had rips etc in his clothes that hadn’t been mended. So, she spent her days doing washing for ‘rich folk’ and whatever work she could get her hands on to get money to pay the rent, get coal for the stove, food for the family etc. Meanwhile the kids were left with other people. Oh, and so she didn’t add more kids to that shitshow she had to have several backyard abortions, that thankfully she lived through, although no ‘time off’ for her from work to recover. Couldn’t get divorced as was basically illegal, she had no right to do so, and he just likely would have killed her for it anyway.

My other grandmother had the ‘joy’ of being forced to leave school at our current Yr6 equivalent, so that they could assist with the younger children (13 younger than herself) and the housework. No point her going on in education as she’d just get married and have kids and do the same thing as her mum. Dirt poor as one labourers wage didn’t go far with 14 kids so the mum took in washing, ironing, mending, which have less time again for her kids, who were primarily looked after by the older ones.

Yes, weren’t the old days fantastic. Let’s go back there.

Realistically, they were absolutely no different to today, in that relatively, a small subset of women could afford to stay home and enjoy being with their kids. The rest of them were really just like women today, and had to leave their kids to others and work.

That’s pretty common. None of know how we are going to feel. I was pretty sure our lives wouldn’t change that much when we had our babies! How wrong we were. I didn’t realise how physically pained I would feel to be away from my babies. I had to go back to work at 5 months but I cried constantly after drop off and I was literally counting the minutes until I could pick them up. My DH is a wonderful father but he definitely just got up and went to work and came home again- was absolutely thrilled to see the kids at the end of the day but he didn’t have the extreme physical pull I had to get back to them. I used to get off the bus and run as fast as I could to get to them. If I could have stayed at home with them I would have absolutely.

@PollyBell I agree, but I do think some women attempt to change the goalposts once they have had a baby e.g. they agreed with their husband/partner they would return to work after mat leave/when child is in school but then change their minds.

So women should have a choice yet men have to just get on with it? apart from women's sole purpose in life should not constantly be centred around what they can provide a household and children, whether it is their own or having to help the 'village' then as grandparents

Men shouldn't be used as a bank, but they make that choice

I think longer paid paternity leave would be an absolute game changer

I agree this would be much better and funding parents to look after their own children would be no more expensive. However, funding parents thus would not add to the GDP or add income to other people - unless, of course, you include childrearing, breastfeeding etc as part of GDP - Invisible Women (I think - read it a while back) by Caroline Criado Perez, makes this point.