...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.

from a documentery , apparently males when in the company of their daughters post birth and for several years after ,their body produces certain horomones which interact with same daughter and aids her physical development.as regards op, above"role carried out by women for nothing " really?do tell more?

and I really hate the attitude that women should stay at home because basically it is a PITA for the rest of the firm for the woman work and have to deal with child illness etc. Most of my firm are parents both the men and the women. If men were expected and allowed to equally share the parenting then it wouldn't be an issue of oh she's got to go home becasue the kids are ill, because like as not it would be one of the fathers who would do this. If men and women had equal rights in the work place as parents it would make like a lot easier for working women.

You can't just say oh nothing will change, business is business. It has to change and thankfully it is very slowly

I'm closer to my father than my mother - I have more in common with him than I ever have had with her.

I actually find the stereotype of the woman in the caring role to be hilarious, my mother dumped me in boarding school as soon as she had the boys she wanted and our relationship took a decade to sort out.

OP - I really like everything you have written in this thread, and think you write with eloquence.

I agree with you.

Funny - I agree.

When my DH was offered his current job, he had to explain his childcare arrangements to his bosses. Why? Because my job requires me to work very specific hours sometimes so he would need to be the parent on call at that point. At other times, I take on that role so he can do specific things and my work accepts that is the case. We are both parents and we are as equal as possible so we share any child-related issues that might come up.

Our life only works if both of us work for companies that see us both as parents. DH says that most of the men at his office have SAHP so there was some surprise at first when he headed off to pick up a sick child. But now they are used to it. It is just the normal scenario for them. He does a good job and is unapologetic because he will also work outside office hours (as will I) if necessary so overall it all balances out. Our employers benefit because we are both very hard working and appreciate how we are treated.

I think a lot of what needs to happen is employers recognising that men have roles as parents too. I could not do my job unless this was the case.

Women are as diverse a group as any other and YABVU to make assumptions about all women. Personally, I hated being at home with my children, I was depressed and grumpy all the time, and didn't give them the stimulation, attention or care they need and deserve. So I work, which makes me happy and fulfilled, and my children benefit from being cared for by caring, trained professionals who are more then happy to play with them and do messy crafts, and give them love and attention.

As with all gender stereotypes, there are individuals who don't fit the pattern and are damaged by being pushed into a box that just doesn't fit them. Many men would love the nurturing role and would prefer to SAH, but societal pressures from the day they are born tell them they should be out earning, and they are defined by their careers.

The business world is set up for and by men without domestic responsibilities. It doesn't easily accommodate women because we are still seen as the primary carer. If this role were shared more equally, if men were just as likely to take long-term parental leave or career breaks as women, to need flexible working or be the one to have to stay home with the sick baby, then employers would have to change to make this fit in with their business. And women would no longer be hearing rubbish like "wanting to have it all" or having their careers damaged by having children. For the working world to be more accommodating to women (and there are just as many women who enjoy working as there are women who would prefer to stay at home), we need men and women to be treated equally, with equal expectations in terms of parental responsibility.

This is why I fully believe in equality. And yes, equal does mean different, but every person is different, not just men are different from women. As soon as we start defining people and the roles they play in terms of gender, there will be people who don't fit the definitions and are damaged by them. So we need to break down the stereotypes, let people be whatever suits them best whether it be career or carer, regardless of their genitalia.

I agree with the OP that men and women are of equal worth, and we will never achieve true equality if equality equates to women becoming like men.

There will always be differences between the sexes, as biologically we are different and these differences manifest themselves in different personalities and different skills, interests and strengths.

In the past the gender roles were more opposed, we must question why this evolved in the first instance if men and women were created the same as some posters seem to believe??? Of course, some men and women are are more suited to their role of primary child carer than others, and there will always be examples of men who are more suited to the traditionally female role and vice versa. But we are not talking about individuals, we are talking about society as a whole.

If we are to strip our society back to its very beginnings, which is not really that long ago in the history of the universe, then it was necessary for the women to assume the role of child carer as it would have been impossible for men to feed their babies. This is where it all began and where a woman's biological instinct to nurture her young is bound, without this instinct the human race wuld not have survived. It is a somewhat ridiculous notion to suggest that this urge for women to need to care for their children has been eradicated in the last few years, and that somehow all men have gained it.

It is not the roles of women that are the problem, but the value society places on those roles and the significance of a monetary value associated with the roles. Take away the money and you have a very different picture.

Those of you who agree with the OP, are you agreeing because you personally feel more comfortable in the carer role? Don't you think that's an unfair role to impose on every other women, and to deny every man just because it suits you best?

I don't personally understand why women who don't want to care for their DC have them in the first place. My DP's exW was always very ambivalent about her DC and outsourced them as much as possible and now they are 15 and 17 has given up her parenting role entirely. Why did she bother having them in the first place?

Flipping hell.

YANBU - I say equal but different a lot . Especially when talking about men and women .

Bonsoir perhaps she believed all the many voices that told her it was natural and she'd feel differently when she had them. Or maybe she did feel differently before she had them and had to face the reality of it? Maybe she wanted children the same way the OP seems to think men should want children - great if someone else does the nurturing.

Bonsoir Or maybe she just parents differently from you.

She doesn't parent at all - I know full well what is going on!

Bonsoir - would you say the same thing about men? Very few men care for their children full time. Should they not have had them in the first place? Not wanting to stay home with your children is very different from not wanting them in the first place. Your DP's ex, if she has given up parenting altogether, is an aberration from the norm. That is hardly the case with every parent who outsources childcare.

It's fair to say that people are equal but different, but I do not believe that gender defines identity in the way that's being painted on this thread. I think it's not always true that women are the better or more natural primary caregiver. I think it's also very hard to differentiate what is natural instinct from what is the values and expectations of society taught from early childhood.

No, of course not, AnnieLobseder. Men shouldn't have children if they aren't prepared to support the mothers of their children in caring for them. A father's role is quite different when children are small.

" A father's role is quite different when children are small"

In your family, maybe.

I think you will find Bonsoir that in quite a few families the woman will be supporting the man in caring for the children while she works full time, even when the children are small.

Surely it is a family decision to have children, not just the woman's.

Bonsoir, it's not that I DON'T want to care for my child at all. Bit of an unfair judgement that.

I think it's not always true that women are the better or more natural primary caregiver.

I agree with you (hence my close relationship with my father as opposed to my mother).

"In your family, maybe."

I haven't yet come across a family where the father gave birth, breastfed and co-slept but if you have I and others would undoubtedly be fascinated to hear about it

What is the definition of caring for your child Bonsoir?

For example, to me it is being there to put him to bed, reading for hours to him, playing with him, not shouting at him because I love spending time with him, setting boundaries and disciplining him so he can function in society, not sleeping more than 2 hours for 16 months so I could breastfeed a milk lover, teaching him to be kind to other people, making enough money so he can safely have a roof over his head, going to museums, taking him to visit family abroad...all these things are part of me caring for my son. I also work outside the home.

Nope, sorry, I disagree with you completely, OP. A mother's bond with a child is in no way inately superior to a father's bond. A woman can become pregnant, give birth, and breastfeed. But not all mothers do any or all of those things. Would you tell an adoptive mother she didn't have as close a bond with her child simply because she didn't physically carry him or breastfeed? Of course you wouldn't. (At least, I certainly hope you wouldn't.)

Therefore it follows that a father who also cannot perform any of these three biological functions can be as fully bonded to his child as any mother. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise, and it is an argument that is generally used to keep women "in their place."