What can be done to get fathers more equally involved in childcare?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello there

Maria Miller, the Minister for Women and Equalities, has asked us what MNers think could be done to encourage fathers to be more equally involved in childcare and education.

As you might know, the government proposes to change the way that parental leave works - after the first six weeks, working families can now choose which parent uses a 'joint' parental leave allowance. They can split it between both parents either consecutively or concurrently, or choose to have either the father or the mother stay at home exclusively, for the duration of the leave.

What do you think? Will shared parental leave have an effect on how families divide childcare? And what else could help to encourage fathers to become more involved in caring for their children? What about education - are fathers as involved as they could be? Please do tell us your thoughts - and any great ideas you might have - here on the thread.

Boohoo, you are capable of understanding that I can refer to different sets of people and refer to both views

of course i am, but it would help if you didn't contradict yourself in your own posts.

Is there anyone who thinks that sharing childcare is a bad thing?

Presumably some SAHMs who enjoy that role?

I know that everyone us different but honestly can't understand why more people don't even consider sharing things equally as a viable option.

It's all down to whatever works for you.

I'll be sharing 50/50 with my partner but I don't judge those who don't want to. The important thing is being able to choose.

Little girls are conditioned and prepared from a very early age for an expectation that caring for babies and children will be their role. In many toy stores, you'll find every single baby doll, buggy, doll's house and toy cleaning product under a pink sign that says "GIRLS' TOYS".

This accomplishes two things: it tells little girls (and their parents, carers, and gift-buying friends and relations) that they should be interested in playing at pretending to be mommies, and that caring for babies and looking after a home is for them.

And it tells little boys (and their parents, carers, and gift-buying friends and relations) that looking after babies, children, and the home is none of their concern, that it's 'girls' stuff', and that their time would be better spent role-playing as firefighters, superheroes, or soldiers.

And then we wonder why little boys grow into men who think that childcare and domestic work isn't their concern, and little girls grow into women who accept that as the norm.

If retailers would take down the 'boys' and 'girls' signs from their toy shelves, manufacturers would stop with all of the pink and blue marketing bullshit, and parents would let children choose their own toys and role-play (many will want to model what they see at home from their parents, which is increasingly likely to be a SAHD or a relatively even split of the childcare and homemaking duties), we might have some hope that the next generation will be free of the ingrained presumptions and expectations that undermine these kinds of attempts at bringing about equality.

I'm sorry but I simply don't believe that many women would be happy if their DCs were with a step mother for 50% of the time. Many don't even want them to go to a grandparent overnight, they don't want a 7 year old going on a sleep over for a night, so I can't see them wanting them to have half the week with father, step mother, step siblings while they are home alone.

I'm firmly on side with the gender neutral toys campaign, but we do also have choices and can make decisions as parents about what toys we buy our children. I'm just not sure changing toy shop signs will change the world by itself (not least because how many of us even shop in actual toy shops any more?!) . There is a lot to be done.

Yes, like every other suggestion on this thread, gender-neutral marketing of toys would be one important thing to do to promote equality. I don't think I suggested it would "change the world by itself." That doesn't mean it's not important.

'If retailers would take down the 'boys' and 'girls' signs from their toy shelves, manufacturers would stop with all of the pink and blue marketing bullshit, and parents would let children choose their own toys and role-play (many will want to model what they see at home from their parents, which is increasingly likely to be a SAHD or a relatively even split of the childcare and homemaking duties), we might have some hope that the next generation will be free of the ingrained presumptions and expectations that undermine these kinds of attempts at bringing about equality.'

Don't Sweden already do this? And yes they do have a higher number of women in work but often in lower status and lower paid jobs and also very high sickness rates in mothers. I am not sure it is all it is cracked up to be or related to toys. My uncles grew up 'traditionally' and are both SAHDs. Different families make different choices for many reasons.

Shared parental leave is hugely important - beyond the point at which breastfeeding stops (which can be almost immediately or 5 years, people are different) either parent is entirely capable of shouldering all responsibilities of a baby. I've worked in Scandinavia and the fact that it continues to be possible for parents to take parental leave until their children are five (either partner) means they have a huge amount of flexibility to work around 2 careers, personal circumstances etc - ultimately parenting is not cookie cutter and giving people the tools to sort out their own lives is the point of this kind of policy.

Apologies if I misinterpreted you Linus - your last paragraph read to me that simply taking down some signs would lead to a sea change in societal attitudes. I really hope it would and does, frankly.

'That's what I said though sleepy, a lot of these women have partners who are very involved, turn up at school etc, do more then the traditional role. So why then did the women choose to give up their jobs? I do genuinely think that it is just what a lot of omen prefer to do, regardless of how hands on the father would be prepared to be'

DH is very involved when he is off. He often does school runs etc in the morning because he won't see them till the next day/days (varied shifts). He may miss birthdays and Xmas or have to work away. But he has lots of time with the kids overall working about 39/40 hours a week and gets to attend school events in the day (so would look very involved) but misses lots of evening/weekend stuff which people don't see.

I gave up as it is far easier for one of us to be home than both work shifts (we had same rotating shift pattern inc Bank Hols, Xmas, weekends, no set hour ed part time work allowed etc) . It wasn't possible to work around it. With 5 DC and childcare needed Xmas, bank holidays etc it would have been sheer hell! Luckily I enjoy being home and DH never has to worry re sick days and when they change his hours. Some people do have good reasons to SAH!

A SAHD from the school has SAH since losing his job. He found that their life ran so much smoother (wife workslong hours f/t) with him home so are staying that way. Some families do work better with a parent at home! Not everyone works 9-5 etc etc.

your belief in the fact isn't what makes it a fact exotic. those mothers exist whether you believe they do or not.

Sorry Vinegar, I didn't mean to imply that. I just meant that if we encourage the attitude all through childhood that domestic work and childcare is the concern of women and girls, and that boys and men should not be interested in it, we can hardly be surprised when little boys grow up into men who view those things as the domain of women.

I know that it's not all down to the 'boy' and 'girl' signs or the pink and blue aisles at the toy store. But if we want to change restrictive, unequal attitudes about gender, we should be looking at where those attitudes form. And that's childhood.

If I were to ask for a vote I am sure that I could bet money on the outcome. I don't believe for a minute that many mothers would want to do without their children for half a week.

it isn't about wanting to do without your children for half the week. it is about wanting the same opportunities to work as your children's male parent and that means splitting childcare responsibilities equally between the two people responsible for the existence of the children. if we are talking about wants? i want to never have to work, i want to never have to think about how to pay the bills, i want to be able to take my dcs on a month long holiday around europe. but we aren't talking about wants.

We are talking about divorce and 50/50 parenting which means that the mother has the DC living with the father half the time. Most women will not want this option. And why can't they have wants?

I think we have to accept that if we are going to encourage more men to take on equal childcare responsibility it has to start when males are young. Social conditioning is everything.

I would have given my right arm to have the sort of father who would share childcare with me 50/50. The idea of not having responsibility for the DC for that amount of time is incredibly appealing - not only for my social life but for the lack of constraints it would put on my career. Unfortunately, X is not a fit father (something that the authorities agree with me on and not my own personal perception alone before someone suggests that).

While I cannot possibly speak for all single mothers, I think there are a large proportion who are limiting contact or fighting against 50/50 not out of spite or some messed up sort of territorialism but because they actually think the father having more contact would prove detrimental to the DC's wellbeing. THis actually makes them good parents, not selfish ones.

The way round this is to breed a generation of men who understand what is involved in childcare and who see the challenges of good parenting as something that they should be proud of. Ideally this would start in the home through good role modelling, but as it clearly won't in all too many cases, perhaps the alternative is to include it in the curriculum, encourage it through tax breaks and paternity enhancements, and sanction it through slapping on costs for NRPs who don't pay their way.

you keep saying most women as if you know what most women want or think.

exoticfruits I think a lot of what you said is true. I was determined to share parental care equally but due to bf, DD often cries for me for comfort. This has led to DH often taking a backseat - asking what to dress her in, what to feed her, does she need a nappy change, etc. Needless to say, I leave him in no doubt that I think he should be making his own decisions. The issue is, when he was growing up, his mum did all the child care and his dad worked. It's a culture shift for him. My parents both worked and shared child care so it comes naturally to me to expect this.

One of the biggest issues to changing the culture is sorting out the ongoing pay gap between men and women. If it came to it and one of us was going to become a SAHP, it would be me as DH earns more than me so it makes more economic sense for him to continue working (even though when we met, we were on similar salaries).

I would just go out - and let him sort it- he has to if you are not there.

I have asked the question Booyhoo- so I will accept that I am a minority if everyone agrees with you. Personally I can't see what compensation it is to have a job if you can't have your children in bed in your home at night.

Oh sure I think it is often easier in the short term to have one parent working FT and one SAH rather than both working (either FT or PT), I just think in the medium term that most families - both parents and the children - would benefit from a more equal division in terms of who the DC are cared for by, as well as who they see going out and having a job/career.

Both working PT certainly isn't an easy option in the short term, especially when you both have irregular and social hours, but for us we decided that the pros (both feeling like we have the best of both worlds, neither feeling tied to home all the time, DS having equally close relationships with us both, both enjoying rewarding careers, both earning independently, neither feeling resentful of the other etc) massively outweigh the practical cons.

caughtinagiggleloop I think working is a great way of encouraging forcing reticent partners to step up to the mark. Failing that getting out if the house regularly for any other reason would work too. My DH was always very hands on but within a couple of weeks of me going back to work (at 6m) and him having DS for whole days alone, his confidence had soared and we've never looked back.

" Personally I can't see what compensation it is to have a job if you can't have your children in bed in your home at night. "

what about 4 nights out of 7 or 7 nights out of 14? do you think my EX works only to provide a home for our dcs to sleep in? is his work pointless because our dcs dont sleep there every night? is work only worth it if you have children in your home at night? what about all the people working away from their families, should they only do jobs that mean they are home every night and if their dcs are there every night?

In terms of equality part-time fulfilling careers for both partners and a 50/50 split of all childcare duties would be the ideal...yes I know unlikely for many.

Real life at present rarely allows for this set-up so we have to accept that often one partner will take on a greater share of the caring duties than the other - perhaps because of unequal career prospects, prohibitive childcare costs, working conditions or other family circumstances. What I think society needs to address is how to make the choice of being the main carer an attractive option for men. Hell it's hardly considered an attractive choice for anyone. As a society we consistently devalue child-rearing and domestic duties (no direct economic value, low status) why are we then surprised that many men don't want to take a bigger role in this area? Add to that, as someone pointed out above, the gender stereo-typing from an early age and sometimes I'm amazed that we are making any progress at all.

I think we really need to rethink where we place value so that both roles (financial provider and domestic carer) are seen in an equally positive light rather than one being the default position of whoever is unlucky enough to earn the least or happens to be born female. I think in our attempts to make sure young women have the careers they are capable of we have undermined the value of the domestic/childcare role by labelling it 'unskilled' and 'dull' - as in 'why would you limit yourselves to this if you don't have to?' Unfortunately our young men are not deaf and are hearing these messages too - have always heard this message in fact. If we want a more equal approach to family life I not sure that's the message we should be sending. Different but equal in value would be a better one. Give childcare/caring a higher status and maybe more men will put pressure on their workplaces to allow them the flexibility to take their fair share or maybe they will even begin to see being a SAHP, while their partner works, as a positive choice.