Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The optional nature of men's lives

411 replies

cailindana · 24/01/2015 12:35

I was talking about this with DH recently and he agreed with much of what I said.

It strikes me that boys and men have very "optional" lives in comparison to girls and women and that this influences their whole approach to life. What I mean is, girls learn pretty early on that their choices will be restricted, that their options will be limited. From only being allowed to wear skirts and then told they mustn't show their knickers (thus removing the option to be active) to suddenly having to deal with periods and curtailing activities due to that, to then contending with the prospect of unwanted pregnancy and thus having restrictions on sexuality to then being told not to walk certain places not to do certain things for fear of being attacked and ultimately being told you "can't have it all" - ie choose work or children.

IMO, women (in general of course, not all) learn very quickly that there are consequences to things, that you can't always have what you want, that sometimes you just have to get on with it and face the fact that everything isn't perfect. I think that influences their approach to so many things in life from housework, to illness, to childrearing. Men on the other hand, always seem to have options open to them and I think that leads to a certain immaturity, a lack of acceptance that sometimes you can't have what you want. I think it has a bearing on how men approach things like fatherhood and the idea that now you don't have any choice but to knuckle down and accept your life is different - so many men seem to want to "opt out" and carry on as if nothing is different, thus leaving women to, as usual, take the hard road.

While I don't think it's right that women often end up carrying the burden I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing to have that maturity foisted on you. I think while women do lose out massively in the earlier years, especially when children are young, that maturity and that acceptance stands them in very good stead as they get older and ultimately they reap the rewards. I notice among older friends that women seem to come into their own in their 50s whereas men can't face that their options are now becoming limited and they no longer have the world open to them - hence mid-life crises etc. I think also because men expect options they tend to skirt on the edges of responsibility, never full accepting the hardship of, for example, parenthood, and thus ending up on the fringes as children get older and become true friends and companions. Thus women, who have been the stable guiding force in childhood, mucking in, organising, being the go-to person, reap the rewards of a close relationship with their adult children, whereas men, who focused on work, never really got their hands dirty with parenting, are now coming to retirement and the loss of that source of status but have not really jumped in with both feet in family life and so don't have that either. They are left with very little.

I am not saying the equality that exists is a good thing. What I'm saying I suppose is that while women look on enviously at men continuing their careers and never attending a parents' evening, they might do well to remember that the emotional toil and labour they put into their families is really and truly worth something. Jobs come and go, they give no love or longterm support. But children are for life, and being that person who always knows where the PE kit is is important, is special.

Men are missing out. They just don't realise that until it's too late.

OP posts:
BallroomWithNoBalls · 25/01/2015 22:26

Interesting thread!

I married an Andrew - not knowingly to be fair, and we earned the same when I went on mat leave (different work arenas though) but in the years since I became a sahm doing only bits and pieces freelance, his pay has gone fairly sky high and I can if I choose appear to be a trophy wife or whatever.

Regarding his work though - he now works such incredibly long hours, I didn't see him most of last week as he was out of the house 8am til gone midnight every night. He will be travelling for work this week.

He enjoys his job and is good at it - but beyond that, he sees it as being a good father to bring home lots of money. We both appreciate that I don't have to work (two preschoolers) bit it doesn't mean I'm not stir crazy at home a lot of the time, and I recognise a lot of what cailindana and others say about options. But also I think responsibility weighs heavily on some men to work hard and provide .

DH is a hands on dad - I am unwell today and he looked after children all day, he often does the bulk of childcare at weekends and when he's on hols, it is definitely split 50/50. But the nature of me being at home is that I know the foibles of the children, I do the bulk of the discipline all week - so for example DS kicked off at bedtime today and I could hear DH getting impatient and not dealing with it well because he's just not used to it. Same with dinner - he had to come and ask me what he should cook.

It's not because he's useless or unwilling or sexist though - it's just the outcome of his role and mine being so divided during the week. Nothing can be done unfortunately - it's impossible for me to do proper work as he would never be able to pick up the slack childcare wise, and his job is notoriously long hours and lots of travel. He tells me the women pretty much all leave after having children, which is rubbish.

I don't think he realises how much stuff I do during the week - so today he was in charge of everything, but didn't do any laundry or cleaning like I would have done had I been in charge of the kids all day. He did his best but he just spends so little time at home, he doesn't realise. On bad weeks I yell at him that he treats the place like a hotel, but that's not fair. He's doing his best in his role, I'm doing my best in mine.

I will go back to work when the children are a little older - I'm not a contented sahm. It's not that DH is doing anything wrong, I just can't stand it. I will pay for a cleaner and some childcare - done.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 21:51

SardineQueen, I am in a similar position. I'm the main earner (soon to be sole earner) and I love it. Andrew the Stockbroker would be my worst nightmare been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

I think the other thing is about The Price Charming thing is that men don't actually have to do that much to earn that status. They can be very uncharming, for example.

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 21:42

Totally agree sardinequeen.

Scallops - I think it is the way it is said. I have worked closely with the forces and the amount of women that say well I can do whatever it is as my dh is a (whatever rank) and use it to get something they want.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 21:35

YY society doesn't value SAHM.

Because society doesn't value women, is the end point there really.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 21:34

I would think that in society generally the status of a woman is still very much tied up in whether she has managed to marry (or settle down) with someone reliable / earning potential / well off etc (relative to her family and peers prob) and also to retain that relationship.

I'm having a bit of a moment here realising that so much in the media and society and everywhere is around these things.

I suppose people feel sorry for me because I haven't managed to marry a man rich enough, so that I have to work full time. I don't think it occurs to anyone that I like it!

I also really really don't get on with alpha male types (can't think why!) and so it was never on the cards that I'd marry Andrew from Surrey as I'd end up wanting to stove someone's head in with a shovel, possibly my own.

This Prince Charming narrative is much nearer the surface of everything than I had realised until 13 minutes ago Confused

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 21:20

Or you may just be telling people about your husbands achievements/job. Which is what I would take from that conversation.

And I think it's a bit disparaging to think that SAHM don't achieve anything. They may not achieve things that society values, especially in comparison to whatever their partner does (even if that isn't very much). And there may be a few privileged women who don't have to work or look after children and spend their days lunching. I would still ask at what price. Very powerful and rich men are not known for their empathy, let's just say. There are plenty of men in the same privileged position of not needing to work. But the vast vast majority of women work, they may not get paid for it though.

Of course single parents (if they are women) are the lowest of the low in terms of status. And they generally earn and look after kids. So perhaps there is a small amount of status living with a man.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 21:17

I've only just really realised that what you describe there creambun is the women saying "I married Prince Charming".

The whole fairytale princess thing has just really slotted into place in a way that it hadn't before. I mean obv be pretty marry the prince I got but I hadn't previously realised that Andrew a Stockbroker living in Surrey was Prince Charming IYSWIM.

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 21:04

I mean fine if you sah to look after children that is obviously a needed role in some families, but that doesnt mean you are a lawyer, doctor or footballer just because you married one. It is common as bonsoir states that some women say my dh is a (insert career) as if everyone is meant to be impressed. Well done you managed to marry a man.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 21:03

Ahh yes! Doh!

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 21:02

scallops- I think cream bun meant look after the children if you wish, but the husbands career achievements are his, not shared .Smile

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 21:00

Yes, agreed scallops and sardine (sea theme there..)

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 20:59

Yy Sardine about it not being the same the other way round when you move out of the gender roles. It's still boils down to misogyny.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 20:58

Children are the husbands achievements? I think I've misunderstood that.

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 20:54

Cause there isnt any status. You wouldnt say my dh has a first at oxford when you only left school with gcses. It would just look completely embarrassing as people would think great but what have you done? Even if they didnt say it. Fine looking after children if you want to but they are the husbands achievements not the wives imo.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 20:51

Sorry that was to TheFriar.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 20:50

I don't think the status is shared by both partners. The lifestyle is. But if you split up the man takes his lifestyle with him. There is no power with it. Even with high earners. Just look at how the wives/partners of footballers are described. Woman = goldigger is a widely thought trope. See creambun's post above.

That's not real power or status.

However, I am really glad you do benefit from your arrangement. A partnership should be mutually beneficial. Unfortunately for too many women, it isn't.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 20:50

I mean I have a great job and love it, work full time and am the main earner. I don't feel the pressure that others mention on this thread although as a dual income household maybe that is lessened. But still, I'm the one with the "important" job.

And yet there isn't a sense that wow isn't she fantastic look at her with her great job and he's so lucky having her to look after him. I think people think that I'm a bit weird / feel sorry for me (?) for working full-time and, well, I have no idea what people make of DH TBH Grin

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 20:47

But it doesn't work the other way around does it. I don't think? Where a woman is more successful / the higher earner, the man doesn't have that same sort of reflected status does he.

So it's not just about the money / flashy job, it's back to gender roles, who does what. For a man to be successful means to be successful in the world of work and have the trappings that go with that, for a woman to be successful means having the looks/charisma/whatever to "snare" a rich man to "look after" her.

And I recognise this in the people I know as well. These attitudes, these definitions of success.

Have we really not moved past these "fairytale" roles?

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 20:33

I am embarrassed for women who hang on to their husbands status.I have seen it before when working abroad my husband was told not to park in a space as 'do you know who my husband is. He is a.....' Why would anyone say that? It sounds even worse if they arent even working. Confused

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 20:31

Yes, the status that comes with high wealth is shared by both partners. But that is because the status of being very wealthy is so great that some of the shine is allowed to rub off on everyone around the high earner.

For your average working family, the status comes from being the earner.

Regarding the idea that a woman's salary being 'optional' brings freedom - to retrain, to take a low paying job she loves, etc. Yes, I would agree. But again only for a high earning strata of society. For the majority of women in this country with young children:

  • their salary is needed to keep the family afloat; or
  • they look at the sums and decide that their work doesn't bring in enough margain on top of salary to be 'worth it'.

The freedom of a job bringing in the pin money really is the privilege of the wealthy.

Bonsoir · 25/01/2015 20:21

Women gain a lot of status via their husbands. I even know divorced women who, years after their divorces, allude to the illustrious careers of their exHs ("I was good enough to snag a McKinsey partner") when there isn't a hope in hell of a repeat performance 20 years down the line and 3 DC later!

TheFriar · 25/01/2015 20:14

I don't agree. With money comes status that is shared by both partners. That's why Bonsoir at the start of this thread was saying that she knows a lot of high flyers women who are now SAHM and think they have the best situation. They have husband who earn plenty, allowing them the status and all the things they want whilst doing whatever they want of their time, and just having an easier time.

When I think there is an issue is that we have a society that expects women to concenrtae on childrearing and do loittle in terms of work. And then to still be fully financially independent if they are divorced/widow. (Not possible. If you want to be fully independent financially, you need to keep working as if you want to stay like this, not going part time, stopping for years etc...)
So yes it does mean it stops some women to get out easily from abusive situation. And you also have the (heartbreaking imo) situation of the woman who was a SAHM all her life, devoted all her time to the dcs and her 'D'H decides to get divorced as soon as the youngest child turns 18yo. She is left with nothing, the need to be financially independent when it will be a very hard situation as she hasn't worked (or very little) for 20 years etc (ie following the 'model'). And no time to get back on her feet.

On the other side, if I take my own situation as an example, I have benefited immenselly from it. I still do actually. I work (self employed) but never felt the overwhelming 'need' to earn lots as DH is providing (ie he is the main earner). I still can look at let's say courses I fancy doing, going for them just checking I can afford it but if I had needed to 'earn' that money (ie I was expected to be a main earner) I wouldn't have done it as too expensive and 'unnecessary' etc...

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 19:51

Are women 'being looked after'? I'd highly dispute that. More like, they are doing the unpaid work men don't want to do.

With earning the money, comes status. Something not afforded to women looking after their own home and children. That situation, as you alluded to, can more easily create a power imbalance especially in this society where childcare and housework is not valued (unless it isn't done up to a variable and indeterminate certain standard). That in turn leads to abusive situations where the person with the status i.e. the money & status. If men felt hard done by with going out of the home to earn the bucks, they would have changed the system. After all they control it.

TheFriar · 25/01/2015 17:50

ShumbTucker Yes. That sort of attitude is damaging to men too because it's assumed that men can't look after children or want to be present etc...

Scallops I would also say that there are some benefits into the system. Not having to bear the responsibilty of earning money and 'being looked after' (as my mum told me when I said I was getting married Hmm) is giving a great sense of security for women. until they end up divorced or a widow or married to a bastard
And men don't have to deal with all the boring housework and the hardship of children.

Talking about myself, using the system to my own advantage has allowed me to do what I wanted of my life wo any worry of the consequences (And I did and yes it is great to be able to do so!).
This happened only Because there has been indeeed 'someone to look after me' or rather someone to look after finances.
And just as much as I am a feminist, it took me years to realise that if I wanted to fully reject that patriarcal system, then I also needed to reject the 'good sides' of the system.

No system will be accepted for so long unless there was some advantages for both groups.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 25/01/2015 17:40

[High Five] Scallops

Swipe left for the next trending thread