Working Parents

I would assume that there are changes connected to the pregnancy and birth in the few weeks after birth. Doesn't the birth lead to an increase in oxytocin?

I don't think pregnancy made me more bonded to ds. But I do think maternity leave did. It also helped me bond with other mums and children the same age as ds.
We all now work all p/t and each of us still hangs out with the others who have the same day(s) off.
DH doesn't have that.
The bonds formed in the early weeks as a new mum can be strong. I'm so grateful to the women who were there for me at that time. It's something dh didn't get.

There must be a significant element of biology that leans towards a mother wishing to nurture. I can't provide a link.

I don't believe in male or female brains. There is no evidence of any such thing.

But I believe there are hormonal changes that have an impact on the brains of pregnant women.

There are also different changes to the brains of anyone who spends a lot of time being a primary carer.

I thought there were hormonal changes that caused mothers to feel very strongly connected to the child during late pregnancy.

The nuclear family and the notion that fathers should feel more connected or be more involved with a baby than any other closely related family member is social conditioning.

Even if there were no hormonal changes in the mother, women with reproductive choices wouldn't get pregnant unless they wanted to have a baby and care for it (combined with work or otherwise) because pregnancy is a really big deal. Men get women pregnant all the time with no particular desire to become fathers.

Interesting thread

I couldn't wait to pack in my job and stay at home for a few years I'd rather not have to work at all, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to choose to be a stay-at-home mum parent with my dc.

Maybe, DH spends a bit more time with DD than me and it's him she tends to go to when feeling ill. I'm not sure comparisons with animals are that enlightening. Maybe when they work 50 hours a week in office jobs!

There may not be an identified gene that makes a mother the default child carer but the fact that we carry our babies for 9 months inside us and then breastfeed them (presumably in the past the feeding would have gone on for longer as a reliable source of nutrition) means that bond might be more than just socialisation. I don't really know the answers but I know that when my kids are poorly they always want 'mummy'. When I was miscarrying the babies I lost, all I could think of was getting to my mum. I can't explain it but I really think there is something there more than socialisation.
I have been trying to find what happens with other mammals. This is an interesting quote.

'Humans are also primates. Among the primates, parenting behavior by males is rare. This isn't necessarily because males have less interest in infants, but because primate mothers generally will not allow males to get very close to their newborn. The males of many primate species have been known to harm infants. On the other hand, males also display protective behavior toward mothers and their young.'

The full article is
www.naturalchild.org/james_kimmel/fathering.html

I personally think it is biological that most mothers want to be with their children in their early years.

Dh and I always calculated income on a joint basis, with child care costs coming out of the joint income (I went back to work ft when ds was only 4 months as at the time that was the maximum I could have off and be guaranteed my old job back).

As it was, when ds was 3, dh had the opportunity to take voluntary redundancy. It suited us, as it then meant he could shoulder the main responsibility for picking up from nursery and dropping off at child minder. I was the main salary earner then for 6 years (when I too was made redundant ) and then we've gone through periods when one or other of us was earning.

Still joint income though whoever happens to be earning.

Dh does all the cleaning though as he didn't want to pay for a cleaner, after I'd organised one

Thanks Kitty. He's challenging it, but being made to feel like he's being really difficult .

I really wanted to drop a day and spend it with baby/toddler ds. And I had friends from mat leave for ds and I to hang out with on that day.

It's not at all about prioritising dh's career. I travel more and we share illness cover early pick ups etc.

But. I think it's very very inpirtant that it becomes normal for men to take leave for the children. Emergency leave, parental leave etc etc should never be described as "women friendly" but "parent friendly".
Dh would have been severely looked down on at work if he'd dropped a day instead of or as well as me.

My DH just applied to work part time so he can take care of DCs some days. It's been turned down flat. No alternatives or compromise positions discussed. There have been a range of flexible working arrangements agreed in his workplace - part time, condensed hours, WFH. All agreed for women. I am . It's a clear example for me of how patriarchy has disadvantages for men too.

But is there really a biological reason why women stay home with the kids, and not the men? There's no hormone or DNA which makes females want to do housework, change nappies, and go to toddler groups.

We may ALL as parents want what is best for our kids, and see full time parenting as the best, but that doesn't explain why men work and women stay home. As there's no biological fact behind it, the only answer is societal norms/mores/conditioning/programming/stereotypes/whatever label you want to use.

Basically - the parenting 'gene' is input by society, both by people accepting the norm of women being carers, and by the economy of women earning less (both as a whole, and compared to their own partners).

I think that on feminist forums you can get a skewed view as to the wishes of the general population. I was trying to find research as to what women actually say they want and so far have only found this Australian study,

aifs.gov.au/publications/family-matters/issue-30/mothers-young-children

but its' findings were that only 4% of mothers with young children wished to work fulltime and 69% wanted to stay at home.This was what women wanted,not what was actually happening statistically . as many of the women who wished to be at home were having to work to make ends meet.
I love my job and have always done at least a few hours a week to keep up-to-date but when I had young children, I WANTED to be at home with them. This was the experience of most of my friends. I do not see this as conditioning. My husband has always been very hands on and has always done at least a day a week of childcare so that I could maintain my skills. He also had 2 years unemployed where he was SAHD and I worked FT but neither of us wanted it to be that way round. My earning power has always been slightly higher as well but we still chose the lower salary with me at home.
It is easy to blame society for the situation but I think you have to look honestly at what women want too. My husband has worked for 4 companies since we married. All have had good flexible working policies and allowed him to work a 4 day week/9 day fortnight/condensed days etc. No-one batted an eyelid when he stayed at home and I worked and I truly think that there is the opportunity there for families to do what they want to do. I just think that women are usually the ones who want to be at home.

Very few people will ever be able to raise children through 'self-provided security.' It requires extensive financial and practical support from either family members or the state. It's an unrealistic goal for most women and has nothing to do with 'programming.'

The average UK wage is only £26,000. The average wage of a childcare worker is only just over £11,000.

OP if this is about threads on MN I know what you mean. It doesn't reflect my peer group though so that's good.

[[http://www.forbes.com/]] is good for data on pay gap.

Problems which would need to be changed before we can really hope for equality.

1. Women still marry older, better earning husbands.
2. Even with the same degree, in the same job in the same company, men earn more than women.
3. the wage gap in the US varies between 91% (best ever figure, for one month only, in a professional career) and 45% (Kentucky, 2012 figures, I think)
4. Women are still 'programmed' to think that marriage and kids are their happy ever after, rather than independence and self- provided security.
5. Marriage only provides a small security - at best a woman gets 50% of assets, but is still often the main carer for the kids. How is 50% OK for a family of 3 or 4 when the other adult still gets 50%?
6. NO protection at all for t woman when not married.
7. You'd think that the previous 2 points would encourage women to remain financially independent, but the lack of consequences for men who cheat/walk out mean that women STILL end up holding the baby and living with significantly less money.
8. Childcare is difficult to find and expensive. More than most lower earners can afford. Women tend to be lower earners. Of course the family's income should be seen as joint, BUT if the lower earner going to work puts them into deficit, then the lower earner stays home.
9. Men still get promoted more, even where women are going for promotion and able to do the job.

The list just goes on and on.

There is, somewhere, stats that give a breakdown of the pay gap by job type, and another set of stats showing SAHPs and part time workers by groups such as ethnicity and age. When I've got more time I'll try and find them and put up links.

Lalalili, I agree.

I worry that we are heading away from this with the change to universal credit.

This will change when people are encouraged to see home responsibilities, childcare and 'wifework' as valuable and equally worthy of men's attention. We do not see men (in general) automatically taking on the same level of responsibility at home thereby freeing women to lead more balanced lives.

I think that the following would be helpful:

• paternity leave and maternity leave on an absolutely equal footing (after 'medical maternity leave' for late preg, childbirth, recovery and bf)
• an expectation from society and employers that men will take paternity leave
• an expectation that men will share home responsibilities. Truly share them. Not 'help'.
• free, very high quality childcare. This will be expensive but should be prioritised
• financial remuneration for parents who care for their children themselves, as an alternative to free childcare
• flexible childcare (evenings, weekends, nights) with a weekly cap on the number of hours a child can be cared for
• far more support for SAHPs returning to work. E.g. jobs being held for a number of years. This would more continuity as mat leave cover could get stuck in for a longer period of time.

OP I think that the situation you describe with your domesticated dh is for many the exception rather than the norm, unfortunately.

We can't answer those questions without knowing the statistics for mothers.

We would have to see separate stats for how much women who have kids earn both before having them and after. We'd have to compare them to women who don't have kids as well as to men who do and don't have kids.

We can't assume that women who are going to become mothers ever earned as much before motherhood anyway.

I'm not just referring to the wage gap in the thirties because you brought it up. I'm mentioning it because it is where the wage gap widens. If we look at the wage gap for twenty eight year olds now, and then look in ten years at thirty eight year olds, we are not looking at the same group because wage gap looks at those in paid employment. Very large numbers of women become SAHPs. Those who are SAHPs at 28 will probably be in work at 38, and those who SAHP at 38 were probably in work at 28. Those women entering and leaving work alter the wage gap stats.

We need to look at both issues - solutions for working women who are planning on having kids and solutions for SAHPs when they plan to return or enter work.