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

Thank you @Humanshurtmyhead. I’m sure there will be some appear soon with a different opinion, I am braced!

Well der, of course not - they are two entirely separate things. How COULD you compare?

The benefit of being in a safe, happy, secure relationship (regardless of whether you have children) is that you each bring something to the relationship and complement each other.

Perhaps your niece will aim higher and enjoy that type of partnership.

Very well said

Oh for goodness sake. This is ridiculous - women aren’t saints because they carry children and give birth! I’m sick to death of this women are holy crap and superior because of innate biology. No one is superior, certainly not due to the fate of biology that wasn’t earned or achieved. I’m a mother - that does not make me better than a man! It makes me a woman, and this crap enforces the idea that women are Madonna, somehow set apart and special, and poor us because we do this thing that no one appreciates.
I know some really wonderful men. I hope my stepson will be come a wonderful man. I know some very wonderful women, and I know twats of both sexes.

it is NOT our sex that defines if we are a decent person with kindness and integrity.

I didn't work for nearly 25 years. We had kids and DH paid for everything

20% of women never have children. And many more than that never give birth but adopt, have step children etc.

Where do those of us in those brackets stand?

Honestly you’re ridiculous. So what’s your solution? Men go 50/50 on what women want to go 50/50 on and then the woman gets to decide the split of the rest?

I earn 3x what my DH earns and having kids had no impact on that. We make a great team, I pay for more financially because I can, he does far more of the mental load and sorting out things like kids activities. The fact that I have a womb and he has testicles doesn’t impact who does what and who does or doesn’t deserve whatever.

What a bizarre thread. The jaw-dropping conclusion reached by the OP is "women give birth". More on this breaking news as we get it.

You are looking at actual earnings, not earning potential. I’m looking at this as an economist. Statistically, women across all earning levels lose earnings when they have children. A woman’s salary trajectory changes for the worse once she has a child. It doesn’t matter if she makes massively more than her partner, she is still suffering a loss.

it is true that most couples just pool money and that is the easiest way to deal with this problem. The question at hand though was can things be 50:50. The answer to that question is no.

Don't do it then or adopt. The world's overpopulated enough and if it's so bad please just opt-out instead of doing it then acting like a martyr.

I wasn’t looking to be compensated for having DT’s. Having children was a decision we both made. The same that we would both continue with our full time careers - DH a doctor and me, Corporate Finance. My career didn’t suffer, or my earning potential.

Its a massive risk and changes the body permanently. Not to mention that your entire life changes and as a mother you are never mentally free again and that's before you even get onto social or economic impact.

I honestly wonder why so many of you had kids.

I agree with this btw and it's why I'm child-free.

That's not true across the board though. I know several families where the mother is the higher earner even after giving birth. You'd have to factor in industries, job types, company culture and also inherited wealth (one of my friends basically gave up her career once she had kids... but her family money dwarfs what her husband earns so she's never going to be the financially vulnerable one).

And isn't this general consensus anyway? Most married MNers with children seem to have one family pot of money and access to their higher-earning husband's salary. Who is out there arguing that married parents should split parenting costs 50/50?

i agree. This is one of the reasons some are having less children. The term princess era had me howling but men just aren’t willing to share/help out when it’s needed. Women are meant to take on the physical and financial burden and still pay their half.

But it is a choice women don't have too

It fucking well does deserve compensation. Its a massive risk and changes the body permanently. Not to mention that your entire life changes and as a mother you are never mentally free again and that's before you even get onto social or economic impact.

Yes children are a gift, however for women that gift comes with a huge cost.

I’m not denying that women are choosing to make that financial sacrifice. I just believe that a worthy partner will offset some of the financial burden. The non-gestating parent should willingly want to cover more than 50% of family costs (or more of a proportional cost if income is disparate) because they know the financial sacrifice the mother carries.

Your last paragraph is so beautiful.

But you're overlooking the benefit to having a child that (presumably) mothers feel.

Our choices in life aren't just determined by financial cost. Most people make decisions that cost them money, because what they get out of those decisions is a net benefit.

If you perceive the cost of parenting as a net loss - which I do, as a child-free woman - then you're free not to make that decision.

Most parents acknowledge that having children is a huge financial outlay (for both men and women) and yet if you want kids then the benefit outweighs that.

My brother and I are both adopted. OP seems to think that if you don't carry a child and push it out your vagina or have it surgically delivered that you wouldn't deserve her so-called 'compensation'. Other posters seem to feel the same, citing changes to their bodies that adoptive mums don't experience. I suppose they don't consider adoptive mums as 'equal' to them. Horseshit. I have two bio children and I know that the love I feel for them is no more and no less than the love my mum AND my dad felt for my brother and I.

But I suppose you and other adoptive mums don't deserve this 'compensation' in that our fathers did contribute 'equally' to our arrivals. After all they did participate 'equally' in the legalities of the adoption process.

I'm not going to say 'thank you' for adopting. Because I know that you and your child give and receive love and joy to each other and 'gratitude' is not a part of that equation. And that you have 'belonged together' since even before your child came into your life. Call it God or call it The Universe, but you were destined to always 'find each other'.

How does it cost her if she is the higher earner? And if she isn’t the primary carer?

And why does the biological reality of the woman being the only one able to bear children mean reality means she is contributing more.

I agree that 50/50 should not solely focus on finance. i disagree that having a child you wanted to have means you contributed more and should be compensated.

This thread confuses me so much. I don’t know how giving birth or going through menopause is in any way a reflection on a woman’s ability/expectation to go 50/50 on things?

Surely most partnerships want to be equal? 50/50 is an equaliser, it doesn’t necessarily mean people put in the exact amount of money to the bill pot or do exactly the same amount of housework, it just means that the effort put into the relationship whether it be financial or otherwise ends up balancing out.

FWIW, I’m the woman in my relationship, I have given birth, and I put more money into family life and bills than my partner and do more childcare. He equalises it by doing more housework etc that I don’t have time to do. Therefore our relationship is 50/50 as we both put what we can in and then the other one picks up the slack?

It still costs her if she is the higher financial earner and wants the child as much as the man. The economic cost to her doesn’t disappear when those things are true.

if she chooses to go it alone through sperm donation that is different. However, a man who expects a woman to contribute half financially should understand that he is not contributing half of the work of producing progeny or experiencing the same economic impact from having those children.

The statistics on childbearing are true across all income levels. It costs women to have a child.

Well if I were a child I’d want my mum and dad equally! We can all say we do the lions share, and we do, but if there’s a man involved, that’s their dad and what happened between us/ the mum or dad only means anything for the child if there’s was a reason he shouldn’t be around them, otherwise we are doing a huge disservice to our children

I’m not 100% sure what your point is. But I would say that you wouldn’t be thinking it if you were in a loving and stable relationship with the child’s father.