There can never be 50/50 between a man and woman as we give birth and they can never compensate for that ever

I'll rise to it....it's not about the man or the woman, it's about the child. The child doesn't care whose body it was in, it wants its needs to be met.

This, what if neither parent gave birth? What happens to the child in the split? 🙄🙄

Men in there (sic) princess era?

WTF is a princess era?

You do realise that only men can produce the essential sperm to get you pregnant?

Princess era?

I’d pay good money to see my husband go through his princess era. I don’t know what it means but I suspect it would be extremely funny.

Yes we have the periods and uterus and pregnancy and birth.

But without the man’s sperm it’s pretty useless!

A child has 2 parents who should parent equally.

Only here to hear about the princess era, lol.
Seriously though.. it’s not about you, or your princess era partner, it’s about the child…

Having the privilege of carrying and birthing a child isn’t something that needs or deserves compensation.

Princess era? What?

@mynameiscalypso It's nearly Halloween. Get him a costume and enjoy

I think men expecting women to contribute 50% to bills when the woman is on maternity leave or working reduced hours to care for their home and children is disgraceful behaviour and perhaps an unintended consequence of the feminist push to have it all. I am a feminist but that for me means women having equal choice and control. It's been taken by some men as women need to contribute equally to finances but still do the majority of childcare and managing the home.
I do think the decision on who takes maternity leave should be the woman's decision. For the reasons you say, they went through pregnancy, birth and in many cases breastfeeding. If a woman wants to get back to work sooner and the man wants to care for the baby that's their choice as a couple, but if there is disagreement the person who had to go through pregnancy and labour gets the final say.

50/50 with what? Childrearing? Finances?

I don't resent that my husband didn't have to have pregnancy or birth or feel I need to be "compensated" for that. I was very lucky...I loved being pregnant, got over the horror of birth and loved having the opportunity to breastfeed. I wouldn't have traded those experiences for anything.

I also earn more than my husband now, even though I had maternity leave as I got my qualifications before pregnancy. So I don't feel choosing to be a mother has negatively impacted my life in any way and I believe our children deserve to have two fully involved parents if you are talking about 50/50 childrearing.

Hard to discuss when you don’t say in what sense you mean 50/50 OP.

Do you mean 50/50 financially, or in taking care of the child, or generally what they bring to a relationship/marriage?

That attitude is problematic and supports women having to always carry the burden. Why shouldn't a man be doing more to support his wife when she is going through pregnancy, labour and postpartum for a child they will share?

I don't know what you mean? What about giving birth means you couldn't be 50/50?

Not sure what the relevance is. If you are looking to be compensated for the childbirth, perhaps you should consider being a surrogate. Last time I checked, not many people view their relationship quite as transactional. Presumably, it was your choice to have children and both of you take care of these children. Both financially and practically.
If the agreement between you is to share ALL aspects of caring for a child and also split both practical and financial household responsibilities, that seems fair. What is unfair is expecting 50/50 financially but not contributing practically. Or, to be honest, even if the man contributed 100% but still did fuck all to raise his children and maintain household, I'd still consider it unfair. But, I guess, then they wouldn't be accused of being in their "princess era".
In short, you appear to be mingling in manosphere adjacent circles with that princess era statement which I am finding very hard to accept as this is just another version of internalised misogyny.

What are you actually on about @WhatTheCatHeard ???

The next generation relies not just on women's bodies but on parents' unpaid labour for the next two decades, and that falls disproportionately on women.

The hit our lifetime financial stability takes from the time taken for mat leave, very likely reducing hours to provide childcare, and even when at work being the default parent whose working day gets interrupted when something happens and who has to take leave ot flexible hours to cover appointments both needs and deserves compensation adds up.

Not for all women, but for enough for it to show up as a massive difference in lifetime financial outcomes at the population level.

The way the system is currently set up totally sucks for mothers. Fine when things are fine, but all the risks and costs when its not.

No, that's not what you were saying at all. Otherwise you would have just said that instead of bringing up '50/50" and "princess era"

I still don't understand the point you are trying to make...

You think a woman who chooses to have a child is superior to a man ? No matter what he ever contributes to society, he will never be equal to that woman?

Do you mean when a couple split? I think if parents while together do 50/50 then contact after should also be 50/50. What I don't agree with is when fathers ask for 50/50 only to get back at their ex or to avoid paying CMS.

I think in reality, most women still do the lions share and are likely to end up being the resident parent while the Dad has EOW and tea in the week.

In my case, my son's Dad was always available in the day if needed, used to pick DS up from school or would have himm when sick but never had him over night which I was happy with.

And where do you think sperm banks get the sperm from?