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

and I think acting like it is something men do to women so men should be grateful forever minimises it.

I made the choice to have children which included accepting any potential risks. DH doesn't owe me a thing.

I guess this is why traditional marriages could work well. With a good husband, everything was shared. So many couples now keep their finances separate and the woman is kept almost barefoot and pregnant with no money to spend on herself. Lots of threads on MN about this set up.

ETA missed the word "now"

"Could".

But depending on a man's goodwill puts all the risk on the woman. And the reality is the economics trapped (and far too often still traps).too many women into staying with utter bastards and being humiliated or worse because they didn't have enough financial security to get out.

Oh! is there some sort of prize?

Did I miss something?

I thought pregnancy was something that happened to me, I didn't realise I had a choice in how I grew the little shits. Could I have kept them in a box, or grew them in a tank like a sea monkey?

What are you talking about - custody of children? It doesn’t really matter who gave birth, ideally a child needs both parents.They get different things from
each one.

I’ve always considered DH an equal parent to me. It’s took both of us to have and raise them. We both worked full time and both contributed financially and practically.

You should see a doctor if you really urinate so frequently. That's not normal and must be pretty disruptive to your day to day life.

I'm sure having saggy boobs and an overhanging belly are not great for your self confidence, but that's not the reality for many women.

I don't think anyone is denying, or ignoring, the risks of pregnancy and birth by saying their husbands/partners contribute equally.

I do think women should think very very carefully about who they have children with.

What about the large percentage of households where the women are the main breadwinner, despite having given birth multiple times? This applies in our household, I didn’t need compensating financially, I needed an equal partner so that I could continue to work full time and rise in my career without the domestic stuff overloading me and holding me back.
His reward for being amazing is the large pile of pension savings I’ve accumulated for both of us…

What about the homes where this doesn’t happen? Are we actually at a point where if it doesn’t affect us we don’t care?

I do wonder, if more people actually married before having children whether men would waltz off so easily. (I work in a school where a high percentage of women are single and there are multiple children being born and “step children” being introduced)

So are you seeking to neg men and criticise them for not being biologically able to do what only women can possibly do? Do you routinely do this to men you know/meet in real life: basically blame and berate them and tell them they are not much use for having been born male? Do you have any sons?

I am also the higher earner in our household, but fully appreciate most mothers are probably not in that position.

I think the idea that men should compensate women for giving birth is nonsensical. Men should support their partners and take an equal role in parenting their children. If, as a couple, they decide that the mother will stay at home or reduce her hours then he should pay a greater proportion of bills.

I think women should think long and hard about who to have children with. That would solve a lot of problems.

God these types of thread are repetitive and tedious.

We get it. Men are the scum of the earth, they serve no valuable purpose whatsoever, and women are superior in every way, and if women we in charge we’d be living in some kind of amazing utopia.

I would say thia thinking is deluded

Why don’t we go back to the child rearing structure that was in place for most of human history? Then no worries about individuals compensating the other. Extended family groups of around 20 people, obviously specific individuals as actual parents but the group overall raising the children and looking after the elderly. More independence of teenagers and learning from peers. And obviously everyone will get along famously…

Sounds hideous.

Worked for about 300,000 years apparently

And then we moved on.

So what happens if the woman doesn’t give birth?

Also this is a stupid post. Everybody can have their preferences. If you don’t align with theirs just move on. Getting the hump over a man’s preferred relationship model is daft.

Absolutely 🦇💩.

You act as if women bear children as a favour to men instead of because they want them.

And if a woman is the much higher earner and not the primary carer?

And if a woman uses a sperm donor? Who compensates her then?

Lots of things happened for years that we moved on from.

For a blink of an eye in terms of how long we’ve been here. It wouldn’t work for me but then I’m not stuck with one of the pathetic man children described by some in this thread.

I don’t want to raise other people’s children.

I think some women probably need to think more carefully before having kids in non-committed partnerships. I grew up around a lot of single parent families (including my own) but none of those involved stable structures before the kids arrived.

I wouldn’t mind if they essentially fucked off and raised themselves from aged 10 and there would several other adults around with equal responsibility.

I'm not sure changing how we behave as a society is the answer.

Wouldn't it be easier for women to take a closer look at the men they are thinking about having children with before getting pregnant? And simply not having children with him if he seems like a loser.