...to think that Mothers and Fathers are Equal but Different?

[CSLewis]

I posted this at the end of another thread with a slightly different focus, so will re-post here: I was struck by the assumption that 'equality' means 'sameness'; that being a mother is no different from being a father; that 'parenting' is the same whether being done by the mother or father.

I disagree with all these assumptions. That does not mean that I don't think that mothers and fathers have equally important roles to play in the upbringing of their children: it does mean that I think those roles are different, because men and women are different. And I think that a child's mother is uniquely suited to being the primary carer of her child. This website is not called "Person-Net" for a reason.

I know I'm going to be accused of being gender-deterministic, or of vilifying mothers who return to work and leave their babies with professional childminders. This is not my intention at all; however, I do believe that it minimises the importance of the maternal bond - and therefore of women - to state that if a baby's physical needs are being met by a competent, or even caring, child-care professional, then this is qualitatively the same as that baby being cared for by its mother, or father, or other personally, consistently 'attached' adult.

I think a whole generation of women have believed the lie that they are not equal to men unless they are financially independent; that they have little value, or right to respect, unless they are contributing to the economy directly via the workforce.

In order to be happy with their new role as "same-as-men",women have then had to be convinced that their babies are just as well-off in child-care as with them. Does anyone on here really believe that? That a child-care professional is as good as a mother? And if they don't believe that, how has it happened that women end up in a position where they are forced to sacrifice their child's welfare for the sake of their own financial independence?

That was a rhetorical question; I really don't believe that a mother would deliberately make a choice she thought was detrimental to her child if there were other alternatives available; but the whole set-up of society now makes it very difficult to support a family, let alone own a home, unless both parents are working. And if both parents work, their children are in child-care. And in order to justify that 'necessity', women need to convince themselves that qualitatively their children are no worse off than if they were at home, being cared for by a parent (preferably, according to a few thousand years of evolution, their mother). And by accepting that bit of double-think, they devalue and do themselves out of the most important job any human being has ever had to do in the history of the world: raising the next generation of humankind. And our government is perpetuating that double-think by constantly pressuring women to return to work so that they can also provide a job for whoever will be looking after their children.

Apologies for the rant. Apologies to all whose I've just offended. Not my intention.

FWIW I agree with you. YANBU to think that. I get annoyed by the whole 'equal = the same' argument. I think that naturally men and women have different strengths and I get annoyed by the belief that if you're not doing the same thing then you are less valued. Sorry I've not phrased that well but you know what I mean. You'll probably get a pasting, but I think YANBU at all.

Minefield. I have to admit that personally the thought of going back work full time and leaving a baby with a childminder or nursery feels absolutely wrong. I just couldn't do it. I'm not sure though why I feel that way. Even now, when DS is 2 and very sociable and independent I am very very reluctant to send him to playgroup two mornings a week as I'd planned so I can have some time free to spend with my new baby (due imminently). To me he seems so vulnerable and I can't trust that someone else will treat him kindly.

Is that me being overprotective or is it some instinct? How do other mothers get over the feeling of needing to be around their small child? Or do they just not feel that?

I think the only reason people believe mothers should be the main carer is because of conditioning and centuries of living in a patriarchal society. If you grew up playing with dolls and caring more about your hair than your brain and surrounded by SAHMs then it's difficult to break the pattern.

If generally speaking we all have strengths (and weaknesses)

If looking after babies is the mum's strength, and the dad's weakness.

What is the dad's strengths and the mum's weakness?

Thing is though Kirsty - I didn't grow up playing with dolls and caring more about my hair than my brain. I also didn't have a SAHM, I had a SAHD. My mother worked fulltime. I got the top possible marks at school and have a first class degree and postgrad, so I'm not some brainless nitwit. Yet I can't get my head around leaving a child with someone else. That said, I'm not sure my DH would be ok with it either, but I don't think he'd ever be a SAHD.

I mostly agree with you, but with less emphasis on the woman = carer, man = provider roles. I took very limited maternity leave and much preferred going back to work. Ideal situation for me would have been house-husband, but instead I had to rely on professional childcare, and I've never had any doubts or guilt about it either. I am more than happy with my choices and have happy, well-adjusted children.

However, even if we achieved a society where it was as acceptable for men to be SAHPs as it is for mothers, and even if women consistently earned as money as, and were as successful as, their male counterparts, I still think we'd see far more women as SAHPs. Simply due to the fact that, to date, only women can gestate and that the physical process of birth can often take some considerable time to recover from. And breastfeeding causes further complications.

I don't work because I want to contribute towards society or have bought the lie that I have to to become 'equal', I work because I enjoy it, it fulfills me as a person and as our household is set up we need the money. I also truly believe that my DC are no worse off being looked after by a CM for 6 hours per day.

I think that people all have different strengths and weaknesses. It's unlikely that these are neatly aligned by gender. They are often assumed to be because of socio-cultural factors, rather than because women are actually uniquely suited to bieng the primary carer for their child(ren).

Some women would choose to work in any circumstances, you know.

I think this particular government is quite keen to encourage women back to the home instead of at work TBH

Unless, of course, they're on benefits. And even more so if they're single mothers on benefits.

Daddelion - in my family my Dad's strength and my nother's weakness was teenagers.

She's all about babies and little kids. But she couldn't do teenagers.

Dad was brilliant - firm but always fair. Fun but still had definite boundaries we didn't (dare) cross.

I think teenage boys really need a father figure to teach them how to be a man.

I think the "equal parent" thing is something that is measured over about two decades.

People trying to claim that a father is an "equal parent" to a day old baby are using supposed equality to further subjugate women to a male agenda.

Daddelion: I wouldn't want to use such polarised terms, but I think the father's 'strengths' would come from his being naturally a bit more emotionally detached, and so able to provide a strong "spine" to the family. Mediterranean countries have a saying about the man representing the Law (or Authority, if you like), and the woman representing Love. Both are absolutely necessary in rearing children, which is why I think both roles are vital, but complementary. I obviously do not mean that fathers shouldn't be/aren't loving, nor that children should not respect the authority of their mothers!

I personally think the way to change things is to change the working world, which has evolved as it has because someone - usually a woman - has been caring for children, for free, in the background.

If we recognise that childcare (whether professionally provided or parentally provided) performs an invaluable service that benefits the whole of society in the long term, it should be possible to fund both types more effectively - so that families with SAHPs aren't so penalised for it and so that those who choose to work can afford decent childcare.

IME people tend to judge their mothers for how their childhood was. Even if the father was a prick. I wonder why that is?

Cailin - I was talking about 'society' and the way girls and women are conditioned. But with all your quals you probably knew that.

Dahlen - I agree, it's a tory ideology hidden behind economic policie.

I think the only reason people believe mothers should be the main carer is because of conditioning and centuries of living in a patriarchal society. Or perhaps because a woman carries a child in her womb for nine months and actually gives birth to them. Humans are animals and it is the norm in the animal kingdom for the mothers to look after the young. I don't personally agree that babies are damaged by mothers going back to work but it's the minority of women who go back to work in the very early months. Those early months when the baby is tiny are when I do agree the primary carer should be its mother. When they are a bit older I think both parents can play a more equal role. Nothing wrong with a SAHD if that works for that particular family.

childcare (whether professionally provided or parentally provided)

This is precisely the conflation I have a problem with, though; I just don't think that caring for your own children can be bundled into the same economic provision as being paid to look after someone else's, whom you don't know and with whom you have no connection other than a monetary one. Child care is big business; families are something else.

IMO just because you carry a child doesn't mean you're the only that can/should look after it. And I hope you live by the idea that "humans are animals", in that I expect you're lying around naked, in a field, not able to speak and have a child every time you're fertile, whether you want to or not.

OP - I agree with you, and I think your post is very eloquent.

I really wonder why some people think that a functioning, educated brain is wasted on small children (or, indeed, children of any age). I, like CailinDana, have a first class degree and I also have an MBA. My children (and, indeed, my DP), benefit hugely from having an educated mother/stepmother/partner who is so well-equipped to help them on their way.

I think you're underestimating the quality of much professional childcare TBH. I spent a long time researching mine and ensuring that I could provide my DC with the best possible care in my absence. My fabulous CM became a friend of the family and I think she'd be rather hurt at the suggestion that her relationship with my DC is only a monetary one. Of course, she wouldn't have done it for free, but it wasn't just about money and there is a real emotional bond there. And I think that's the sort of result that most working parents strive for when choosing a childcare setting.

Most people who enter into childcare do so because they like children, and most people generally tend to form emotional bonds with people that they care for on a regular basis. There is much more a connection there than a monetary one.

As my DC got older, I introduced nursery care to give them a more structured environment and help them prepare for school, and this worked very well too.

I was lucky with my choices (and skewed the odds heavily in my favour by really doing the research and vetting). What needs to happen is that childcare should be made this consistent across the board so that parents can go back to work secure in the knowledge that their children are being well cared for.

That said, I would have much preferred to use a partner or parents/family friends precisely because the bond is stronger, but in today's world that isn't very realistic. More and more people move away from family because of work and with retirement age rising fewer GPs will be around to provide free childcare. And having one SAHP is fast becoming the exclusive reserve of the well off, thanks to insane house prices/rents and the ever-rising cost of living.

If a SAHP or family-provided childcare is really the holy grail, then we need to vastly rethink our society, which means putting a financial value on roles traditionally carried out by women for nothing.

CS I don't agree with your suggestion that fathers are naturally inclined to play a different role in family life than mothers. DH and I share all aspects of parenting equally and although of course he is the Dad and I am the Mum this biological fact doesn't affect our parenting or how our DC perceive us.

In fact I hate the notion that women are more naturally predisposed to look after the children. In our case it's simply not true

and yes agree with Dahlen my relationship with my CM is far from just monetary. She provides us with an exceptional level of support and was actually a friend before she became our CM

As far as I can tell, the only difference DS percieves between DH and me is that DH doesn't lactate.

That said, I've found leaving him at nursery very hard emotionally in spite of him being perfectly happy there. I think its harder for the parent who has been there 24/7 for months tbh.

"And I hope you live by the idea that "humans are animals", in that I expect you're lying around naked, in a field, not able to speak and have a child every time you're fertile, whether you want to or not."

:o hahahaha!

Or maybe she should be swimming around in pitch darkness with her DH living on her as a parasite?

The idea that animal = lying naked in a field is beneath my 4 year old.

Brilliant!

How can anyone take issue with the fact that humans are animals?

Well we're all different. Some of us have to work to pay our mortgages and some of us (gasp) earn more than our partners. If you had a baby then voluntarily reduced your household income by around 60 per cent and to one pay packet, and felt comfortable with the resulting financial insecurity, not to mention impact on your future employability and pensions, that was your choice. It wasn't mine. And I have a partner. I imagine your comments are even more hurtful to lone parents who have no choice but to work if they want to remain economically active. And to put your mind at rest my daughter is happy and settled in her child care and they do a fab job.