Women taking on the "main childcarer" role at the expense of their earning potential

I'm not sure how to take you, Monty.

Well they managed to get enough energy to get themselves legally declared women on the basis of their feelings.

And the right to abolish alimony and the right to have maintenance set at poverty levels and not linked to contact so that they could commit financial abuse without it being seen as an indicator of their fitness as parents.

They fight for the rights they want to, don't they?

Men won't ask for directions or go to the doctor when their leg's hanging off, but you expect them to ask for paternity rights?

File under 'making shit up'.

Part of the difficulty is the extraordinary demands "career" type jobs make on people, which I think needs to be tackled for the good of society as a whole, not just for parents and children. My contract says 35 hours a week: I work 60. My boss probably does 70. His children are grown up and my DH is a SAHD, but it's not good for either of us - our physical and mental health, our marriages and in my case my DD. But DH and I couldn't both do jobs like mine unless we used a nanny and a nursery, and although I'm decently paid the money isn't in that league. Part time absolutely not an option for me: I wring all the flexibility I can out of the job, but it's not that much. DH's employer was totally inflexible, and he earned less than me and is older so the decision was obvious - luckily for me I don't think he minds too much.

I don't think it's healthy for children to see one parent working crazy hours and the other entirely focused on them. It would be much better if the example we could set to DD was both of us working and earning, but also being around for her, sharing the domestic work and having lives outside work. I'm too shattered to do much outside work, and DH can't go anywhere without getting a babysitter (because once you add in commuting time I'm out of the house for 13 hours a day, every day).

So basically, what BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure said. Screw them both up. Then we might start to see some real change.

"Yeah, screw them both up. There's a little part of me that says "yeah, that's the point".

Get that on a tshirt.

DH and I have both cut back our careers to an extent by the choices we made post kids. Luckily we could afford to and both want to.

Agree with Basil.

If it was the case that more men wanted to stay at home with their children, they would. Men have far more choice when it comes to life decisions anyway.

Threads on here and ignorant comments from people about the subject all show that employers are wary of employing young women of child bearing age, that some women support their husbands in their discrimination against these young women and that they crucially don't feel like this toward young men of the same age.

If men wanted it, they would have it by now, they don't have it, so they don't want it. It is men in positions of power, not women, remember.

I think if most men wanted to be SAHP's, they would have lobbied for those rights an won them by now.

Men as a group have far more power than women do. If they really wanted proper paternity rights (and obligations) they'd have them.

Also I think you'd see men in positions of power change their workplaces.

They haven't done so. Because they don't want to.

m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22924708

Yeah, screw them both up. There's a little part of me that says "yeah, that's the point".

when the change to parental leave was announced a couple (?) of years ago, so that mothers and fathers would be able to split the leave between them if they wanted, there was a comment from a poster that has stuck in my mind:

"great, so now we'll BOTH be able to screw over our careers!"

How many men's financial decisions are based on the assumption that their earnings are actually theirs, rather than their families?

Oh, a fellow cynic. I say quite a few. They see a temporary cost for delivery of family, then increasing pressure for the wife to earn their keep. In a job that befits their career, of course. And that allows for theirs not to be disrupted.

I'm only speaking of what I see and hear.

I admit to being cynical. Anyone else have an explanation of the poor take up of parental leave by men? It's certainly not because of financial impact round here, unless you count a bit less being spent on 2nd home renovation or a few less evenings out at charity balls.

I wonder why I rarely hear of high earning men putting money into their SAH wives' pensions. Strikes me that this is in many ways a better safeguard for a potential widow than other options.

I suppose it removes control from the man, in the case of divorce, but surely if they feel they should be able to "claw back" money in the case of divorce, then they fundamentally haven't accepted that their income is no longer theirs alone but "family" income.

How many men's financial decisions are based on the assumption that their earnings are actually theirs, rather than their families?

Yeah, cos men are socialised to be crap at laundry. Ammay right?

minipie i meant

i do know what you mean

I would stay at home if I had everything done for me. I like playing with the children but I will never be the tyle of mum to cook a roast dinner on my own, or a cake or iron a shirt etc.

I just dont do anything like that so as I work I dont have to and I find it easier. I dont mind cleaning but I cant do other wife type tasks so I get why men wouldnt want to do that type of thing.

They aren't itching - that's why the take up of the new leave rights is so poor. They know which side their bread is buttered.

Am I just in a cynical mood tonight?

And, don't forget, mothers may want to be at home because they pretty much know that their partner would make a half arsed job at being the sahp. And they would still have to do the bulk of the domestic chores and admin.

Apologies, mixed you up with Petula!

Not sure when I freely admitted that; my DS will be most put out.

even if they are a happy sahp minipie, if the marriage breaks down they're still in the same position as the reluctant ones

On the backs of the unpaid/underpaid labour of (mainly) women

I admit that I live in Middle Class Central, so that's what I base my comments on.

True but mire to the point paid work pays the bills!