...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.

The idea that my husband is more 'emotionally detached' is literally laughable and the idea that his role is to be some kind of family policeman is ridiculous. Every family is different because every person is different and that's ok, isn't it?

Oh come on Bonsair, people take issue with anything on here if someone 'shock horror' may have a different view point to them. Obviously KirstyoffEastenders has some scientific knowledge that we aren't privy to

"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)."

The problem is that I would have to discard 30 years of working as a historian to believe that the norm in the past (until the mid-20th century) was for a child to be cared for almost exclusively by its mother.

If we are really looking at millennia of evolution, where are the older siblings/childless aunts/grandparents/unrelated females which have traditionally filled a crucial role in baby and childcare (and which also do so among other primates)?

Another development that has come with the industrial revolution is fathers working far from the home, leaving early and returning late and so being less involved with their children on a day to day basis. In traditional rural society, he would be much more of a presence around the homestead. That is not millennia of human evolution, it's about 300 years in this country and considerably less in e.g. Scandinavia where the industrial revolution was much later.

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. Are you having a bad day Kirsty? Did you miss the other sentences in my post where I said 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. Why don't you go and have a and take the gloves off :)

I am in agreement that "equal" is not a synonym for "same". I am not in agreement with most of the rest of your post.

On the male/female issue: Frankly the parent's gender doesn't matter, their personality and interactions with DC does.

On the whole needing work to 'be like men': It's not to be 'like' men, but to be 'more equal' to them outside the house. Would you prefer to return to 'the good old days' where there was no escape route for women in bad situations?

On the 'handing children over': DC's need continuity and consistency of care. Is it really an issue that the care is being managed in a number of different ways by different people (Parents/Childcare/Grandparents etc.)? Surely this simply aids the child being able to cope in different situations later in life?

Cailin I didn't want to leave my baby with her dad alone the first time - but I did because I knew they would be fine. Ditto my parents. Ditto my sister. Ditto my MIL. No, I didn't want to leave my baby at nursery and it was painful but I did because I knew she was in a safe environment with experienced people who encouraged me to drop in at any time. Also it was always the plan because I couldn't have had a baby and not gone back to work. It would have been grossly financially irresponsible for me to do that in my own circumstances. And I am a great mother with a lot to give so I refuse to feel guilty. Every parent will have to leave their child with strangers at some point (unless you home ed I suppose) and it will never be easy.

Bonsoir Wed 30-Jan-13 16:09:25
"How can anyone take issue with the fact that humans are animals?"

All sorts of different child rearing methods are practised in the animal kingdom. Species change and evolve over time, and sometimes change rapidly to adapt to changing circumstances. Otherwise we would still be scattering eggs in the ocean.

Kirsty, Of course I'm not saying that only mothers can look after their 'young'; my emphasis is on what is optimum for the child, and my point is that there is a lot of political/sociological will to perpetuate the myth that 'who' cares for a child is irrelevant, or at least less important than the mother's career.

Time and again I have followed threads about the negative impact that having a child has on a woman's career prospects and how she is viewed in the workplace. The logical conclusion seems to be that, if you want a career, don't have kids! Because they will compromise you to some degree, at some point, unless you literally delegate their entire upbringing to nurseries, schools, childminders, holiday clubs, nannies - which begs the question of why you inconvenienced yourself so much by having them in the first place.

The human race needs to be perpetuated. Biologically, it will never be a level playing-field in the workplace, because only women can have the babies (and breast feed - another thorny issue where the child's welfare is often subjugated to the woman's need/desire to return to work. The WHO and APA recommend breast feeding for up to 2 years for optimum benefit!). Having children will always disadvantage women in the workplace. So either women continue tying themselves up in knots trying to do both things at once, or more value needs to be given to the role of child-raiser, in the hope that more women will be willing to see it as a viable 'career' for some of their lives.

These issues do seem to be politically and socially untouchable, though. For example, breastfeeding for at least six months is scientifically proven to improve the odds against children getting, as adults, a wide variety of diseases/conditions, from cancers to obesity. It also raises IQ. Issues like this - which go against the relativistic, "whatever feels right for you is therefore right" modern mindset - are totally taboo, though, because of the numbers of people involved whose feelings will be hurt, and who might be made to feel guilty because of the implications. But hurt feelings and guilt do not disprove the findings. Biology is non-negotiable, and does not bend to relativism.

We're so far down this road economically and socio-politically, though, that I can't really see a way back. I think society will suffer seriously in the long-term though. Possibly in the short-to-medium term too.

So the answer is 'women, recognise your biological destiny' rather than 'let's try make some changes to our social systems so everything isn't seen in quite such a binary way'? I would rather do the latter.

OP, how would you propose to 'give more value to the role of child-raiser'? I agree that this would be valuable but I have yet to see anyone suggest viable ways of tackling it.

The problem is not what women view as an acceptable "career", the problem is finding a way in the workplace as a mother is much more difficult than as a childless woman. Doubly so if you have (for example) time out to care for young children. Its not "whatever feels right", its ensuring mine and my family's continuing financial security over decades. What "feels right" is to stay at home and cuddle DS, but that won't do either of us favours in the long run.

It is indeed like breastfeeding, its a short-term struggle for long-term benefits.

Also 'biologically, it will never be a level playing-field in the workplace' - so employers can't be expected to try to work around taking time out, breastfeeding and still allowing women to occupy senior jobs? Oh no, let's not make companies compromise. Just the pesky women. More than half the population of the globe.

CS - just on your last post. BF'ing until six months only provides a 'spike' in IQ which levels out around the six yo stage.

Yes, at the moment having children does disadvantage women in the workplace, but with the increase both in SAHD's and with changes in parental/paternal leave, there is no reason that this won't improve in the medium - long term.

CSLewis - I also wonder about a society where there are no responsible, reliable, educated and available adults whom others can fall back upon. I am deeply fortunate to live in a segment of society where there is a large proportion of non-working and highly educated mothers and I do think that the presence and activities of those mothers provide a bedrock of support, stability and human values for others that other segments of society no longer enjoy.

Not quite sure who your comments are made towards LadyWidmerpole but you do make some valid points.

When I gave up work I was at that time the higher earner. My husband has overtaken my earning potential now, so it wasn't a long term issue.

The way we see it is that we are a team and that my career/pension/salary 'sacrifice' is our choice to provide what we see as the better option for our children. He earns our money and I manage our family (with input from the both of us into each others areas). I had children to care for, educate and raise them to adulthood and beyond. It would be very hard for me to share the majority of that responsibility with anyone beyond my husband. I feel the parental bond is way above that any child care professional can have, and my experiences that I had when working with children and parents have enforced this belief.

I do believe in the ethos it takes a village to raise a child and therefore children do benefit from people outside of the home having an input into their lives.

My mother ended up being a lone parent, it wasn't how she planned her parenthood but she made the most of it. I think for her she was constantly stuck between a rock and a hard place though.

humans aren't animals.

I'm so confused.

I thought we were mammals. Apes.

[identity crisis emoticon]

Yes to equal not meaning 'same'. I said that on the other thread.

equality is not about being identical. Otherwise we'd all have to be the same gender, same size, have the same skin and hair colour, do the same job...

Different people are equal. Different roles are equal.

I truly wish that society supported SAHPs, but I take very strong issue with the notion that it is right and proper that women have no independent access to money.
Giving men exclusive access to money and making women materially dependent upon them, and through them the children, is a vile system that is wide open to the most rotten, corrupt abuse (and so obviously that it would make you wonder whether that is what it was in fact designed for, rather than an unfortunate by-product). Only now, very gradually, is it becoming the case that women need not stay in abusive marriages, or starve.

CS, I don't think it is a myth, and a mother's career is important in terms of equality, self-worth and what (I believe) is a better mix in the workplace, in politics, etc.

"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."

I would posit a similarly structured sentence thus:

In order to be happy with the role of owners of women, men have then had to be convinced that their women are not as good as them, could not survive alone, and are better off in marriages than they would be with independence.

I'm absolutely not saying that companies shouldn't have to provide work-around solutions to enable mothers to work, but I think it's the wrong fight to take on. It will always be going against the fundamental aim of 'business', which is to make as much profit as possible. I can't see how flexible working hours, covering maternity leaves, covering unexpected child-related absences, will ever be perceived by businesses as being a profitable avenue to pursue, so I think they'll have to be dragged to it, and women will still feel more compromised than men in the workplace. Ugly, but true.

With regards to the issue of trying to re-evaluate the value and importance of child-raising, I think that the first battle is with women themselves; if we can't agree that we are the optimum choice for raising our children, I don't think we've much hope of convincing anyone else.

"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."
And I wonder where that idea came from?

I don't think the mother is ideally suited to be the primary carer of her child simply because she is female,some women are,some men are - I've seen some fantastic Dads with their small children,at work,who are obviously very well suited to the role of caring for their children.

I agree "equal" and "the same" are not synonyms,but the whole argument makes me twitchy because it often seems to come from groups who say that men and women are equal ,of course,and raising children is as important as anything else we do (it is...) but because they are different women should be primarily responsible for that work of raising children,while men do - well,whatever their talents,interests and opportunities lead them to.It makes my head hurt.

For the benefit of Hecate and the other confused, we are animals but we don't behave like animals (well, in most cases anyway).

HTH

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

Do what's best for you and your family and in the majority of cases the end result will be what is best.

"it is right and proper that women have no independent access to money."

Who on earth ever implied this? In an equal relationship between two adults, both of whom valued the other's role and input, there would also be equal access to that family's money.

Humans who pretend that they aren't animals and/or that much of their behaviour is not due to deep-seated animal instincts are in the deepest form of denial and need to see a shrink (or something).

Your post seems to have nothing to do with its title. What has using paid childcare got to do with men and women being "inherently different"

Conflating the two issues does nothing to help a logical discussion about either.

FWIW my DH is a much more natural "nurturer" than me. We both work PT - different days, obviously - and share childcare (with - shock horror - some paid childcare, too) because that is what makes us both happiest. He can and does do everything I do (except breastfeed).

I genuinely think the reason more people don't consider this arrangement is purely down to societal conditioning.