...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.

Nobody breastfed or co-slept with my dd.

My sister was a SAHM with 2 boys. When they were babies she loved it .
There was much to be done on renovating the house that she wanted, but couldn't do the heavy work, nor wanted to. Also as the boys grew, they wanted to play football in the school holidays. My sister hates it. They changed roles when the boys were 7&9, when DH had the opportunity for redundancy pay and a pension. She returned to work as he had to do 60 hours a week to earn as much as she could in 40 hours. Dh did the house renovations and played footie with the boys and all house domestic work including cooking.

My sis was chuffed. She did not share any of the household chores with DH

I agree with VinegarDrinker

Bonsoir

I did not breastfeed or co-sleep. My DH does not lack any of the nurturing instincts I possess. Our differences in parenting are not down to gender, they are mainly down to the fact that I am more savvy about practicalities because I was home with them for 10 years. He could have done it as well, if not better - he certainly cooks better than me.

And of course good quality childcare is available. It should be available everywhere, it shouldn't cost parents an arm and a leg. And I think that for many families, placing a child in a daycare or with a babysitter or whatever is absolutely a positive thing. It isn't "second best" in any respect.

Good post Annie

We co-slept : the emphasis on WE. Both of us.

The ONLY thing he didn't do is breastfeed. Which is purely a method of nutrition AFAIC. (I know others feel differently, but I never did).

He does cuddles, slings, playing, soothing, nurturing, stimulating, reading, bedtimes, bathtimes, night wakings, tantrums....

Of course the first 6 months of exclusive BFing I did more with DS, but that was where it ended. I went back to full 12 hour days and night shifts (albeit part time), so DH had to be able to, and want to do, everything necessary to nurture a young baby.

Agree with Emmeline earlier. This is an attempt to start a fight trying to disguise itself. So I am off. Last comment - OP, the most recent post of yours was being handwringing in a very vague way about centuries of our ways of thinking being cast aside. If that's thinking on a par with other things people believed in the past like racism being justified, young kids working down mines being ok, disabled people having their condition as a punishment for sin in a previous life, then I'm happy to chuck outdated thinking away. Long live social progress.

I'm with Kitchen

I'm not convinced there's any major difference between men and women when it comes to raising a child

The perception that pregnancy, breastfeeding and co-sleeping creates an especially close or different bond is false. I have strong parental instincts for my children, I have a very close parent-child attachment to them, I cherish them unconditionally. Did I breastfeed? No. Co-sleep? No. Give birth to them? No. I didn't even know my eldest existed until she was 10 years old. Do I have less of a bond or love for my children than a birth mother? No I don't believe that for one millisecond. I know plenty of mothers who have both birth children and adoptive children and not one of them feels any difference in their love whatsoever

Then, that leaves the argument that women can achieve a bond with any child (regardless of birthmotherhood, bfing etc), that is different/outweighs the bond a man could achieve with the same child. I'm not sure I believe that the sexes are that different

Hear hear, Snazzy.

And I agree with Lilka. Breastfeeding was a way of me bonding with DS but that was because it was there for me as I did give birth to him. It was part of our particular story.

Do I think I would feel any less love or bond if I adopted him? Absolutely not. We would come at it from a different angle and have a different story as 'our story' but the end result for me would be the same.

I honestly don't think BFing made one iota of difference to my bond with DS. I didn't have any problems, but certainly never enjoyed it or had any hormone rush. It was a quick, cheap, easy way of getting milk in. This was just how it was for me, obviously. Others have different experiences.

That's exactly it Vinegar. It was a lovely hormonal thing for me but I know it isn't for everyone. So it only matters to me as part of my feelings. And that's why I think that people are different and it's as much based on personality or mindset as it is gender in most cases.

It's like so many things to do with having children - some people seem unable to grasp that just because their pregnancy/labour/birth/breastfeeding experiences/baby/toddler/child/relationship is a certain way, then that doesn't necessarily hold true for the rest of the population.

Mind you, where would MN be without that assumption and the ensuing controversy?!

I agree with the OP. Great post.

Ruby my sentiments exactly. That's my response your earlier point wrt parents in work sharing the childcare

Annie wholeheartedly agree. People need to see beyond mother as primary carer.

I asked DH tonight whether he thought women were pre destined biologically to care for children. His snort of derision told it all. Although he doesn't deny that women and men are still brought up to think that man = breadwinner, woman = carer.

DH does the lions share of childcare in our house because he is a teacher and his hours dictate that he is at home more than I am. We are both equally good at it and actually, having both tried it, would not suit being SAHP.

In conclusion it is such a personal thing that sweeping statements like women are better at being the primary carer than men are really nonsense and sound too much like Toby Young for my liking. It's the perfect get out for reticent men!

and FWIW I hated BF and could never co sleep. So my DC are as well off with their Dad as with me from the pov of the things only a mother can provide.

I know some mothers feel a need to justify their position in the family but please don't do it at the expense of us mothers who work too. I love my children just as much as you do you know.

Snazzy:

"If that's thinking on a par with other things people believed in the past like racism being justified, young kids working down mines being ok, disabled people having their condition as a punishment for sin in a previous life, then I'm happy to chuck outdated thinking away. Long live social progress."

Quite.

The OP hasn't come back. I was interested in the answers to questions about how all this might actually work. In principle I am very interested in ideas about how parents might be honoured and rewarded for the work they do outside and beyond capitalism, that don't come down to "make women work for free and make them materially dependent on the men they have been allocated to, who can then do with them as they please"

Anyone else have any thoughts about that?

I am interested in that too curry and I really don't know the answer. I was a SAHM for a couple of years and found that the lack of 'status' was crushing. I had been used to the professional world and really found the main issue was that my 'work' as a mother was just not valued at all. I hated that feeling and felt myself becoming less and less relevant and more invisable.

In fact I knew I had to get back to work when my then 4yo DS1 said that he thought mums were there to pick up after him.

One way would be to have both parents due a percentage of their children's income.

It use to be that children were an economic good for parents - an expense at first but quickly becoming economically viable and eventually, effectively, a pension in old age. Nowadays parents and the state put a lot of resources into children, but only the state are entitled to economic wealth those children generate when they get older. If part of the tax we pay automatically went to parents instead of the state then that investment would be paid back.

(I'm not serious about this as a proposal, far too many ways in which it would be unfair, just trying to illustrate that there is wealth generated by raising children and it isn't currently coming back to parents.)

I don't interpret this thread as a deliberate attempt to have the SAHM/WOHM debate yet again (although it's sort of inevitable because of the language used).

I think the most pertinent part of the post is this:
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.

What I'd like to see addressed is why childcare - which is so fundamental to a successful workforce - is so devalued. In doing so, the fact that traditional female roles have been so devalued becomes very stark indeed. We need to raise the status of childcare regardless of whether a woman is performing it as a mother or in a paid capacity. And part of the solution is to make men take more responsibility - either by doing it themselves in greater numbers, or by being held financially accountable for it when they receive most advantage for it. Increasing paternity rights and giving women greater rights to their co-parent's pension, etc., is a small nod to that but much more needs to be done.

Dahlen - right after that paragraph the OP wrote:

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?

So she really was making this a "Women are going to work for their own selfish needs to the detriment of their children" thread, right from the start.

"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?"

Interesting - I think this is a good question.

I do not buy that paid childcare is necessarily bad for children, and that it is sacrificial to their welfare.
But I do think that it is interesting to ask the question why it is that childcare of one's own children is not financially supported. I do not consider receiving money at the will and discretion of the child's WOHP to be financial independence. Actually nor does the OP; she writes as if financial independence is a new requirement, something that women have suddenly come to need (because they are "forced" to do things for its sake), in the manner that people now need phones and fridges, which previous generations managed without.*

I don't think financial independence is a new need. I think it is an ancient need and without the means to materially support oneself one is in danger of being a slave or destitute. I think what has changed is that only recently have women been able to meet this need. Marriage and prostitution used to be the only ways.

*I am not contesting these needs. Times change and needs change with them.

Perhaps the question is better put - why has it become necessary to give up economic independence to look after children? It never use to be. Women took children to work with them, or did work with their children, or left their children with others while they worked. Oh wait - that's exactly what WOHM do now!