More women have to accept they can't be the default primary carer?

[Babycham1979]

Inspired by another thread, I'd like to ask others what you think about the myth (as I see it) that women can 'have it all'.

I know many educated, professional women who have still insisted on being their children's primary carer as soon as they're born. The fathers' preference has always come second and they invariably end-up acting as the primary earner (often against their wishes).

It seems as if many women are asking for the impossible in expecting to fill very senior positions in business and politics, but simultaneously assuming motherhood to have primacy over fatherhood.

Parental leave is almost equally available now; women out-earn men up until child-bearing age (29); and more girls are graduating (esp in law and medicine) than men. Now is surely the time for the sisterhood to actively encourage men to be the primary carers of their children? At least half the guys and dads that I know would love this option, yet it's not been made available to any of them.

Are we really saying that women can do anything in the public sphere as well as men, but men can't parent as well as women? Either we're equal or we're not.

Only when we have real parity at home can we have parity in the workplace, no?

I would love for dp to be sahd, so would he!

But the reality is he earns 3x what I could.

I don't want to be primary caregiver, and dp hates his job, but the only way to reverse our roles would be to become totally skint and dp wouldn't be able to support his other kids.

I haven't had time to read the whole thread so apologies if it's been said already in the latter half.

Your point that "More women have to accept they can't be the default primary carer" is valid to an extent but in common with many people who have commented, the issue for many parents now is the lack of support for men in the workplace to parent equally or at least more fairly. It is assumed that I have obligations outside the office and if say I can't be here for an early meeting or have to leave on time, it is not questioned. My DH's career is definitely being affected by old school senior management who simply have no concept that "pick up at 6pm" means exactly that.

Finally - I have been in the lucky financial position in the past to "offer a role" as SAHD to my husband. In common with EilisCitron Thu 27-Nov-14 12:48:29 opinion he removed his rose tinted specs and opted to remain at work. Thankfully.

Personally - I don't equate "having it all" with having my husband as a SAHD. I don't think it is healthy for many [there are exceptions] marriages for one half to bear all the financial burden, while the other the domestic burden.

I earn more than my husband. At the moment I work a "4 day week" (although in reality, as I am a self-employed barrister, I work more than this because I have to do evenings and some time at the weekend). He works full-time. We share the care of our son fairly equally although I possibly do a bit more because of the Fridays off - but then, my husband often has to take the primary burden of weekends. I do have to work some Fridays; sometimes my husband covers, sometimes his parents and sometimes our nanny. We have another baby on the way and we are considering possibly both taking the Friday off so that my husband can work on his doctorate and/or cover for me when I need to work that day.

I love my Fridays with my son and would hate to give them up. I've been quite selfish about them and can see that my husband would like a similar arrangements. He has a child-friendly employer so it should be workable. I have had to push and struggle a bit to make my 4 days work but I work in probably the most family-friendly area of law there is, and the tribunals I generally appear in are very familiar with equality law, so I think I have found it easier than most barristers.

I agree that we need to get out of the mindset that the woman should always be the primary carer. But I think at the moment, although it is moving in the right direction, the legal set-up conspires against this. When shared parental leave comes in in April, men (or women) taking shared parental leave will not get the statutory enhanced pay for the first 6 weeks available for women on maternity leave. And many companies offer generous enhancement of statutory maternity pay, but do not offer the same under the current additional paternity leave/pay provisions (which have been around since 2011, but only around 1% of new fathers have taken advantage of them), nor will they offer the same when shared parental leave comes in.

I take the point that maternity pay/shared parental pay is only an issue for a year. But in many jobs, a year - and two, or three, years if you have more kids - can have a significant effect on your career progression. Until the government and employers start to make it financially sensible for men and women to share parenting equally, the problem described in the OP will persist.

"But beyond the first year or so when the baby is possibly dependant on breastfeeding, why have a primary carer?"

Was thinking that myself. I breastfed both mine into toddlerhood (still feeding the two year old) and took a year of maternity leave for each of them, so I was the primary carer then, but since I've been back in work I wouldn't say either of us is the "primary carer". We both earn about the same, at a similar career level, do the same amount of child-wrangling-related stuff, the maternity leaves seem like such a small part of our overall parenting already even though DS1 is only 5. I don't think it would occur to us to do it differently.

Blame I see the same where I am. And I find it even more depressing because these are women, like the teacher, who react like this.

In my dcs class, only a handful if mums, if that, work full time. Even the ones with high profile jobs (management ect) work part time.

-Lines may I point out that fathers can get up through the night too ( so there is no need for the mum to be ever so knackered in the am) and that childcare us coming out from bothwages as it facilitates both mum and dad to work?

See that's something else comes back again and again on MN. And RL.

Surely it's more realistic to talk in terms of mums and dads wanting a better balance in their lives. Is it really so surprising in the 21st century that many couples simply don't want the role of sole earner or full time SAHP?

Totally agree Lines and it sounds like you and your DP have managed that which is great. Unfortunately lots of careers/jobs still rely on the assumption that their workers are the main breadwinner and therefore don't have to worry about child related responsibilities etc. My DH's job for example is very much long hours or nothing. There are very few women in his industry and virtually all the men have SAH or very part time working wives.

Yes, can def see how it depends on the industry - fortunately neither mine nor DP's job expects ridiculous hours (though his has a certain amount of travel so I do the odd couple of days solo parenting) so we genuinely can share drop-offs, pick-ups, making of school lunches, etc.

But it is hard. It's hard not because this arrangement doesn't work for us. It does. But it doesn't work for other people: from my (male) colleagues who tell me how 'amazing' I am to manage it all; to the school teacher who insists on sending whole class emails to all the mums (and once brilliantly replied to an email DH sent her, addressing her reply to me instead of him); to the doctors that get suspicious when DH is there and say he needs permission from me for e.g. vaccinations. It's all eye opening and rather depressing.

That is unbelievably depressing. I must live in a very right-on sort of area (actually, I know I do) because there really is not that sort of attitude here. Lots of fathers (including DH) are regularly in evidence at drop-off and pick-up, and school events.

I am not and have never been the primary carer in our family. And our DCs (oldest now at uni) seem to have survived perfectly well. DH has always been the primary carer (me doing my long hours but well paid job meant he could afford to do his much less well paid but incredibly family friendly hours job) and we have always outsourced everything we can apart from child care.

"I must live in a very right-on sort of area"

Yes, I suspect I must too, as I know most of DS1's friends' dads from school pick-up, events, etc. Also boggling at doctors asking for the mum's permission to treat a child BROUGHT IN BY HIS/HER OWN FATHER. FFS.

The thing with long hours is that you CAN work along those with both parents working full time. But you need a system in place to look after the children. And it doesn't exist because the default position is for mum to step down.
Personally I think it would be better fir both genders nit to work do long hours but this is probably another issue.

What I finding interesting too is the immediate switch that seem to happen once women are married and have their first child. There seems to be like a switch and tell the women she must step into the 1950 idea of being a housewife 'because she is on maternity leave' and for the man to step into the very patriarchal idea of what a man does in the house (ie nothing) even when they had a very good spilt of hw etc before hand.
IMO this is as much the man responsibility for doing little at a time when his DW should need more support than the woman to accepting it 'as he is working so hard'

I spent much of both my maternity leaves going to the cinema and eating cake. This may explain much.

The Friar

I must live in a forward thinking area too, as the things you have described simply aren't familiar to me - none of the women I know write their husbands off as incapable or incompetent simply because they are men, nor do the men expect to jettison their household responsibilities when their wives are on maternity leave. Considering I live in a fairly rural village in a largely conservative area, I am surprised to learn that we are epitomising modern life, but I have friends all over the world who are doing similar, so I wonder if it's more a case of mind-set than location.

It's not always that easy though is it? I think a lot of women would be happy to not be the primary carer but their partner disagrees and expects most of the work (/leaves most of the work) to fall to the woman. A lot of men also expect their career to come first so that may be driving women's choices. Plus there's a tendency for type A women to marry type A men who are more reluctant to step back in their roles.

Fortunately I've picked a type B feminist who has been open to the idea of being a SAHP - not all partnerships are gonna work like that though.

The thing is having and A personality isn't bad in itself bit us having a B personality a good thing.
They both have their advantages and men and women should be able to chose how to live their life's as they want. Very driven or more laid approach.
It would be a shame to move from thinking that A type people are 'better' and what to aim for as it us now to a place where we think there will before balance but will held a negative view of driven people (which is the case atm about women).
We need both tbh.

Had another thought about the system as it is can favour women too.
When I had the dcs, I was made redundant. As the childcare for two dcs would have been more than my wage, I decided to be a SAHM and to retrain so that my job would fit around the dcs. Bad move from me as I am very driven and more a type A than a type B personality. But this was what was expected from me, what people did around me (remember backward type of mindset here). Did my training and started my own business.
Now because the onus has never been on me to make money, I've had the luxury to take my time to build up the business and make money from it.
DH on the other side was under pressure to bring the money.
Things changed when I reverted to type, got driven again, made the business work but also worked longer hours. The benefit for DH us that he was 'pushed' into taking a caring role but now has a much better relationship with the dcs, the I us if being the only wage earner us gone (I'm now back to pre dcs wage whilst working less hours in the week)
All that to say that the current system in effect 'care' financially for women, which had it's advantages. And being driven can also give a lot men all fighting to stay at home with the dcs? (Clue: it's actually hard work, takes longer to get anything 'back' and the rewards compare to the ones you might from work can give a lot to a family, incl More balance.

Sorry read my last post again and the end doesn't make sense.

What I meant was
the current system is beneficial for women because it is supposed to care further financially.
And on the other side, being a type A driven person/mum can be beneficial for men too, giving them a more balanced life
Its not really about saying that one type if behaviour isn't right and should be avoided at all cost.

Good posts, Friar

I agree.