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

We have changed how we behave as a society, for most of human history it was like this. So women do need to pay more attention to who they are saddling themselves with now because the rest of the tribe aren’t there any more to take up the slack.

😀😀😀 me too! It must have an element of fancy dress to it. And a wand. Definitely a wand.

Your inability to use the reply function is very frustrating.

I'm struggling to see what your point is. Society should not have to pick up the slack for inadequate men, so I think we're in agreement.

@Ally886 ha I know right. A lot of men don't even want kids and now OP thinks it's a good idea to make it even more unappealing? I thought we were trying to get the birth rate up! They will most likely just call the woman's bluff if she tried all that and say "lets just not have kids then"-who would lose out then?

Yes. My point is like with many other things,
we have stopped using the societial patterns in under which we evolved to operate. We did it the other way for about 99% of human history. Now, if you’re going to adopt a familial structure with only one other adult, you’d better make sure that the single other person you have to depend on isn’t a shit one.

And if he shows signs he’s likely to be shit then make sure you have a tonne of support around you.

Well, as an adoptive mother I think i have done considerably more than DD's birth mother, who sadly drank during pregnancy and then abandoned DD on and off until DD was finally removed permanently.

Whereas I have been there day in, day out, prioritising DD's needs for over a decade.

So no, I don't think pregnancy and giving birth always wins a top trumps in parenting.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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'.

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.

Your last paragraph is so beautiful.

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.

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.

But it is a choice women don't have too

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.