Working Parents

Women earn less than men in some part due to their 'choices' of profession.

They migrate towards the caring professions. And they are encouraged to do so, often on the basis that they will be happier (though as we know the caring professions are full to bursting with unhappy, underpaid workers).

Then when the decision to prioritise comes up post children, it's a fairly done deal.

"and an actual physical pain being parted from them for any length of time"

I never felt this and never heard any mothers of my acquaintance say it.

Anecdote isn't data.

I guess what I am asking is, why do so many mothers feel a 'need' to be with their children when they are small and an actual physical pain being parted from them for any length of time? I actually think that this is the more common reaction .I think if you were to look at social pressures honestly, there is more pressure to return to work than to be a SAHM. That is why you have so many MN threads saying 'I want to be a SAHM but am I setting a bad example to my children? am I making myself financially vulnerable? Am I letting down women? etc.
I think the 'socialisation' of today is opposite to what the norm used to be and yet still most women instinctively want to be with their babies. That is why I put the stuff about primates. It felt very instinctive with me, and I am someone who absolutely loves my job, but was determined that until my kids were all at school, we would survive on one income and I would be at home.

I do not understand how this is considered to be socialisation when it is a mothers choice and desire.

How is it not socialisation? Are the mothers choices made in a social vacuum?

I get that some men feel there is an expectation that they stay at home and sacrifice all for their family and I think these men are often frustrated and sometimes depressed in this role as it is not what they would choose

If my misquote of you here looks odd, it's because of socialisation.

Vdb, do you say "bless you" when someone sneezes, "sorry for your loss" when someone is bereaved and "thank you" for a gift?

That's socialisation. it's second nature to say those things. It's very hard to separate ingrained socialisation from instinct.

I do not understand how this is considered to be socialisation when it is a mothers choice and desire. I get that some women feel there is an expectation that they stay at home and sacrifice all for their family and I think these women are often frustrated and sometimes depressed in this role as it is not what they would choose, but the SAHM's I know are mainly there by definite choice. I also know many working mums who desperately want to be at home with their little ones but feel they cannot afford to. This seems to me to be an instinctive thing not a social thing and I think it is the reason why there is not complete equality in the workplace in terms of numbers of women in high up demanding and time consuming roles. Not as many women are prepared to sacrifice family time and prefer to take time out of their career when having children and have jobs that allow them quality time with their family.

I'll point out that societally influenced beliefs about the capabilities and desires of various groups have often been considered "natural". It's very convenient

This, times 100

We're socialised from birth to be carers. It's not "natural" but it feels so. And verrry convenient.

I gave up my job to care for my children, despite earning 2x my husband's wage. When my eldest was born I was all about continuing to work full time, dh was a sahd... When dc2 was born I just couldn't imagine leaving them to go a job I didn't really care about anymore. Breastfeeding was a huge part of this, I wasn't prepared to leave my baby to go to work - it went against all my instincts.

I never expected to feel this way, especially as I had been fine to go to work and leave dc1. I was brought up to "never rely on a man" and to earn my own money but for now I am following the path that leads to greater happiness for the whole family. YOLO and all that...

To go back to the opening post from the responses on here there seem to be plenty of women who don't want "house husbands" and are indeed happy to prioritise their partner 's career.

I'm not sure how you address that, if it needs addressing ,as it seems a choice made by individual women. Personally it's a choice I could not ever have considered as financial independence was important to me.

The TUC study seems to be directly relevant to this thread:

www.tuc.org.uk/equality-issues/gender-equality/equal-pay/pregnancy-discrimination/fathers-working-full-time-earn-21

I'll point out that societally influenced beliefs about the capabilities and desires of various groups have often been considered "natural". It's very convenient.

Contrasting with primates makes no sense unless you also plan to remove mortgages, jobs, prams and baby food/milk.

A chimp's mother has no option but to breast feed its offspring whilst she continues to source her own food climbing trees etc. The baby clings to her throughout. Perhaps she's the ultimate working mother.

We have no idea how the chimps "feel" about this; you might as well ask how they feel about tree climbing rather than an office job.

I earn more than my husband right now abd have done on & off over the years. I don't want a house husband, although I'm sure he would be up for the challenge.
I'm also more ambitious than him. However I want to see my kids when they are babies so took nearly a year mat leave & worked a 3 day week, then a 4 day week before going back full time when DS was nearly 4yo. This is what I wanted, no matter the impact on my progression. Will see what happens next time.

So I think plenty of men marry / procreate with women who have higher earning potential than them. To say otherwise is a gross generalisation.

& yes I have also met plenty of mums through baby groups & my personal network whose partners have no interest at all in domestic life so the mum takes the hit on her career. This was usually obvious well before they had a kid tho!!!!

It does seem that women generally want to be at home with the kids more than men do. I went part time after dd2 was born because I wanted more time with the kids, not because my career is unimportant. Dh and I would earn the same if I worked full time, and I am more ambitious than him. I'm lucky it's easy to work part time in my field and it only affects career progression slightly. Dh has no desire to progress but he couldn't easily work part time and he doesn't want to anyway!

Ime mothers consider working part time to be the ideal, and many change jobs to enable it. Actually about 90% of my mum friends are part time. I have one friend who is sahm and a few full time. Actually we are all pretty happy with the set up. I think women don't necessarily know what they want before they have babies. I carried on full time initially but am happier part time. If I worked more, as a family we'd be no better off once childcare was paid. On the other hand I will go back full time at some point because it'll really affect my pension.

you are right it is usually the mother who stays home/ goes partime thats maybe down to society but personally i would never have went to work and left hubby in charge .most men would not want to be househusbands i know my hubby would never have considered it no matter how much i earned .

Is it that men don't want to marry women their equal in qualifications/salary? I must say this is what I have observed. Men don't like their equals in that way in my experience

My profession gets a bit of stick for boringly marrying other lawyers, accountants do too.

I went back to work full time when my son was 3 months old. We didn't need both salaries and I could afford a nanny. I could not have borne the idea of not being financially independent.

Husband paid the mortgage and I paid the nannies and cleaners. He paid school fees and I paid holidays and we split household bills on a fairly ad hoc basis.

Our situation is perhaps not the norm. Our career paths have been more or less the same but we have never had a joint account. I don't know exactly what he earns nor he what I earn.

Or that women are socialised to seek to compromise so as to serve both family & career. Or that women are socialised to expect less for themselves, and to sacrifice themselves. Or to see making the family as more important.

Well, the most obvious reason why women decide to prioritise their husband's job is because he earns more

But surely there's a deeper question here: why is it that the husband tends to earn more than the wife?

Is it that men don't want to marry women their equal in qualifications/salary? I must say this is what I have observed. Men don't like their equals in that way in my experience.

Is it structural - men tend to earn more than women even in the same jobs?

Or a combination of a number of things.

Typically in professional careers, there is a 4/5 year period in which salaries really take off and what you earn at the end of that period is relatively significantly higher than the beginning of it - more so than at any other time in your career. This period of time coincides with when most women have children, late 20s/ early 30s. As women typically have children with someone a couple of years older with them, then coupled with the trend of taking 12 months maternity leave, you typically end up in a situation where the mans salary pulls away during that period, and by the time mat leave is over, it becomes a "no brainier" for the mans career to be prioritised. There are a lot of factors that would have to change in order to see a real change in society, and even the most progressive employers are really struggling with this as it contributes to a lack of women in senior management positions.

Dh and I have what you would call high flying careers, he loves the dcs as much as me, yet I am the one who goes about doing Houdini type juggling to make sure that family life is always first. Dh just doesn't think about it in that way. I can only think it's nature.

Bonding is a form of socialisation.

That doesn't mean all the causes of why we bond with babies are socialised into us.

Why should we have that set up? Why should the default for society be that when a woman wants a baby she should do so with the father around at all? Many pregnant may want that set up, and should be able to have it, but I don't see why we should be reifying the heteronormative nuclear family as a society.

Those of you talking about bonding - that is socialization. Just another name for it.

So - if both parents were home early on, mum feeding and dad doing other close things, then the bonding would be the same. Why don't we have that setup?

Surely better for both parents (where both are suitable) to be close to the baby and able to care for her/him, than just one?

What if earning more money or climbing the career ladder isn't the main goal for some families?

I am an administrator, my DH is in advertising. I am on a years maternity leave and will probably then go down to part time and DH will work one day a week from home. He earns more and is doing a job related to his degrees. I quite like my job but could work anywhere and didn't go to uni.

Our priorities as a family is to pay the mortgage, live comfortably, be part of a good church and spend quality time with one another and wider friends and family.
Those goals impact our decisions.

For example DH left a bigger more prestigious firm in Manchester for a smaller local company so that he didn't have to commute. We'd rather he spend an extra hour and a half with us than on a train, even if his career might be better advanced in a city.

As for me, I am enjoying caring for DD right now and I feel like I have a few options for the future, Including getting a degree one day if I decide to.

I hope that the animal kingdom does not translate to humans as the fight for equality would pretty much end there with women back to being told their role is to SAH and mind the house and children

But that's not what female primates and mammals do. They engage in hunting, gathering and social behaviours, as well as tending their offspring.

Female chimps stuck in a cage with their offspring tend not to be very happy.

I think it's possible to keep an open mind about the possibility that women may naturally feel more strongly about being with their children when small than men do, without assuming that means depriving women of choice, or going back to the 50s.

Sorry, autocorrect, carer not paper!

People release oxytocin when they have a warm shower or cuddle a dog.

What I'm saying is that there is a range of hormonal changes in pregnant women and post partum women, and a different set of hormonal changes in other primary carers.

I don't think anyone is arguing that men (or indeed anyone who hasn't been pregnant) isn't capable of being an excellent paper.

I think we're just recognising the particular situation of women that have given birth.

Doesn't the birth lead to an increase in oxytocin?

In theory, yes. However, with cesarean section and hospitals often keeping the baby away from the mother for hours (this has apparently improved, but was a big problem when I was born), I don't think we can assume that the oxytocin during birth has an effect on all women.

It doesn't really matter - men's bodies also release oxytocin in suitable situation, such as when holding a baby, so there is that. It is also proven that men can take care of small children -. if they want to.

Some mothers stay the primary carer and never leave their husbands alone with the children because they don't trust the husband.

In some cases, they are right.

That's the only biological reason I see for mothers being primary carers when the children are toddler age: The fact that a much larger percentage of males are paedophiles.
(Though there is some evidence that men who are primary carers don't sexually abuse children ... question is, is this because abusers are too selfish to do any childcare when the baby is still too young to be "interesting" to them, or is it because of some bonding effect?)