Why is it usually the woman who gives up work?

[Firedoll]

I'm on mat leave and have been asked 30+ times if I'll be going back to work and, when I say yes, if I'll be part time.

My DH has never once been asked about his working hours since our DS was born.

And if I say yes I am going back to work I get "oh, will your DS go to nursery/will you get a nanny?" The idea that my DH could look after DS for some of the time while I'm at work just doesn't even enters people's heads.

I don't blame people for asking because they're just making conversation. And it seems they are making a reasonable assumption as if one of the couple is going to give up work/reduce their hours, most of the time it will be the woman. In my experience at least.

But why is this? I see so often on here people saying that their OH couldn't go part time or is the higher earner. But all the latest reports suggest women in their twenties are now out earning men so that can't be true for the majority.

Is it just a cultural thing?

My team will drop people down to 4 days but no more than that. Only the women who have had babies have dropped down to 4 days on return from ML. None of the many fathers have dropped down to 4 days because..... mainly their wives have stopped work or gone PT.

So my job is considered to be too busy/important/too difficult/too much impact on progression for the MEN in my team to drop to 4 days, but the women ding the same job feel they need to drop down to survive work/home balance. Presumably because their husbands jobs are even more buys/difficult. Or not.

There is no way I woudl have a child with a man who didn't consider my career to be as important as his. Unless he was actually earning mega bucks (£500+, maybe more like £1m) and I could give up work and still have lots of paid help :-)

And not all women breasfeed in the first place, and even if they do, most UK children are not breastfed until school age. Therefore in most cases breastfeeding is really not the only obstacle and reason why fathers can't be home with their children at least some of the time.

It is a reason why a woman's career would be more disrupted, though. Like it or not, the woman is the one who has to have time off for antenatal appointments, for pregnancy related complications, for post-birth recovery, or who has to have her role adjusted so that, for health and safety reasons, she does not perform some tasks when heavily pregnant. It may be supremely short-sighted and ridiculous to penalise women for this for the rest of their lives, but some basic facts cannot be ignored entirely.

It's not really "giving up work" anyway - it's switching to a different type of work (if work is taken to mean an occupation, vocation or set of responsibilities).

It is possible to breastfeed and work, of course, katharina, but for some women it would just add another level of stress. I have had 3 bottle refusers and can't express milk without significant effort. It was a moot point for us as I was the One who chose to SAH, but it would have been very hard for me to leave DC for 8-10 hours a day until they weaned at c. 18m.

And again, the OP was in relation to post 12 months mat leave, when the very small percentage of children who are still being breastfed tend to feed morning and evening only, which is perfectly compatible with WOH.

And again, the OP was in relation to post 12 months mat leave, when the very small percentage of children who are still being breastfed tend to feed morning and evening only, which is perfectly compatible with WOH

This is my own experience as well, with 2 bottle refusers. I fed both to over 12mo, but they were only feeding twice a day, before breakfast and bedtime. The number of EBF babies are very small in the UK. The number that are still BF at 12mo must be even smaller. This doesn't not reflect the number of mothers who SAH.

I went back to work when DC3 was 7 weeks old and DH became a stay at home Dad. I managed to keep up morning, lunchtime and evening breast feeds until he was 16 weeks, which was better than I managed as a stay at home Mum.
We did it because I earned more and had better job security than DH.
This was over 20 years ago, and it doesn't seem to be much more coon now than it was then.

I wonder what proportion of people, irrespective of the existence of children, would say they enjoy working full time and that it still gives them enough flexibility to ensure the domestic sphere of their lives is organised and enjoyable? And what proportion of people would say that their career would remain hugely important to them if they didn't need the money?

I bottle feed my 6 month old. I'm going back to work part time in 2 months' time. My husband will still work full time, because he has 5 years' more work experience than I do and therefore earns more (2 years older, plus I did a degree and he didn't). He is also very good at his job and at securing himself payrises - I'm good at my job but keep quiet about it!
He's actually the more keen to stay at home, but we simply can't afford to lower his wage. Nothing to do with gender.

For us it was two things. DH earned much more than me, and secondly more crucially, DH wasn't fussed which childcare setting baby went to nor the length of the time (so full time). I didn't want to put my young baby in nursery full time, and also struggled with finding a good nursery.

I'm on mat leave. I'm glad shared parental thing is a thing now but would never consider it myself because it would mean I'd have to go back to work and my DP would have to feed them with a bottle which isn't what I want.

I do understand what you mean and I think it is quite sexist. After the year off we'll both be working.. but my partner's wouldn't let him be the one who picks up and drops off from childcare so is left to me. I don't mind that myself - he in no way thinks it's my "job" it's just our circumstances. It bugs me though that he has quite a macho job and basically you couldn't have two parents do the same job and have a child unless you have two nannies (one woman he works with does this), so his place of work is 90% male. The inherent sexism of management that don't think that men can't always work those hours pisses me off. Luckily my hours are better.
I might stop working altogether after a second one but that'll be because I want to / if we can afford to. I guess it somehow feels more natural that it would be me just because by that point I will have had two mat leaves i.e. Two whole years off work anyway.

foxley It kind of is about gender really. Because men are more likely to shout about their achievements and ask for pay rises than women, so they are more likely to get them.

Roundabout I work part time and,if I didn't have children, I'd still like to work part time, at the most 4 days a week. I like to think I work to live, even though I enjoy my job. But unfortunately in order to live, you need money. Most parents aren't putting their children in childcare 10 hours a day 7 days a week. It's just that example that's used to beat up all working women.

I am the main earner, husband is SAHD. It was partly a choice but he's fine it for longer than we hoped now. We have 2 DC. With the first he was still working, I took just shy of a year mat leave and then he took over as we wanted to move house too (to be nearer my job, meaning he gave up his). I carried on bf DS til he was 2. I hoped to take a full year mat leave with DD, aiming for DH to start work again so we could cope with loss of pay but circumstances meant I had to return to work after the full pay ran out (which was 7 months in my case which is pretty good going). Again I carried on bf (still feeding her now and she's 2, trying to wean her though, she's resisting) - I pumped at first but stopped before she turned 1 (she just had milk when I was home). So why am I telling this, guess because it's p

Damn posted to soon as feeding DD

I wanted to say my experience shows that It's possible to bf and work full time when it's after the initial few months. I think people don't think that it is and that may explain the fact why so few women continue to bf into the second year. It's less relentless then too - I can go out in the evening and DD will be fine.

Me having a bigger more stable income has driven the decision for me to work and to be honest I'd rather the work was divided more equally so we both had the mix of work and home but the biggest challenge to our situ has been the expectation. Many people ask me when DH is going back to work which I think wouldn't happen as much if he was female (well maybe it would happen now but I don't think it would have done when DD was under 1).

We chose for me to take a full year maternity leave and then go part time. My husband and I earn similar for similar companies but after discussion this is what we wanted. I am pregnant again and will take another year and drop a further day from work. I am glad we decided for me to take the year off, my daughter hated solid food until about 10 months so still breastfed round the clock, and I hated expressing. I did breastfeed until my daughter was 2 but it was easier post 12 months where she fed morning, teatime and bedtime. When my children are school age I plan to only work school hours, I'm luckily in a job where this is possible.

I don't see childcare are drudgery or inferior in anyway to my job. I love my days off with my daughter. My husband is very hands on but he didn't want to go part time.

Here's my take. Women often working in caring professions that are less well paid. A baby comes along and her salary then barely covers childcare costs. And no one expects the father to stay home - of course! So then of course it is "natural" for the mother to stay home. It is a rational economic decision from one narrow point of view but there's a lot of bullshit patriarchy stuff that means that many women end up in that inescapable position. E.g. Subjects at school, university, career choices thereafter, persistent pay inequality, and a shed load of cultural "noise". Given the low rates of breastfeeding that's just a rubbish excuse most of the time.

comtesse I agree. Then there's unspoken discrimination from some employers not wanting to promote women who might go on maternity leave or mentally putting women on the mummy track as soon as they get a matb1 form.

If your workplace is treating you poorly and what they're paying you is barely covering childcare, going out to work with little ones is an utterly demoralizing slog. I'm sure it's fab if your workplace values you and you continue in an interesting and challenging role after having dc.

Yes, it's a cultural thing. As a feminist I find it pretty annoying.

FWIW I outearn DP by about ten times so he will be a SAHP and I will work full time.

'Then there's unspoken discrimination from some employers not wanting to promote women who might go on maternity leave or mentally putting women on the mummy track as soon as they get a matb1 form.'

And at the same time, can you well and truly blame them, with these year-long maternity leaves (possibly 2 or more back to back) and then so many women wanting to then go part-time, work from home, flexi-time?

You know what drives me nuts? I am widowed mother to a two and six year old. I work eighty percent. Frankly I'd rather work full time because being with children all day is very lonely. Also it would make financial sense. But I feel others would judge me. No one asks the widowers I know if it is ok for them to work full time. They are simply praised for being able to manage childcare evening and weekends. But I am made to feel guilty working 80 percent and not 'being there ' for my children. Who else is going to pay the bills?

So the double standard is there even when there is only one surviving parent....

Trouble is expat that it's assuming all women are the same. I wanted to go back full time to my interesting, challenging job after 7 months mat leave but it wasn't there for me anymore. That wasn't my choice or decision and I had no idea my employer would do that to me. So I wasn't willing to give them full time, went part time and I've just started mat leave two. It's a situation of my employers own making, though if you didn't know the ins and outs you might assume I'm just one of those mummies whose maternal instincts are keeping her from participating fully in the workplace.

This is my own experience as well, with 2 bottle refusers. I fed both to over 12mo, but they were only feeding twice a day, before breakfast and bedtime. The number of EBF babies are very small in the UK. The number that are still BF at 12mo must be even smaller. This doesn't not reflect the number of mothers who SAH.

Yes, the last sentence is key here I think.

The physical impacts of pregnancy and birth are definitely a factor in some women's decision, to an extent that isn't always fully understood. I was discussing this on a thread some weeks ago and had some poster who doesn't know a thing about my medical history confidently tell me that the impact of being too unwell to work during one pregnancy wouldn't have had much impact on my career, as if she'd possibly know! So it is important to be aware of these factors, and I must say the sheer physical exhaustion I feel from pregnancies close together, health complications and interrupted sleep means I can't imagine coping with FT work yet (and DH is also PT and also knackered without even having had the pregnancy and birth bits!). It can take a real toll.

However, the rates of breastfeeding past a few months in the UK are much lower than the rates of women taking full ML and/or SAHing, so by definition breastfeeding can only be a factor for a small number. That's not to say it isn't very important for that small number, but it's not our explanation.

I'm on mat leave and plan to go back to work part time. It makes more sense for me to be the one to cut my hours because I earn less, he works slightly shorter days, I spend 2.5 h commuting a day vs his 40 min, and he (a teacher) has more leave than I do. So with him working ft he'll still see our DD lots but if I went back ft I'd really only see her at weekends. If our jobs were reversed I'd like to think that he'd be the one to cut his hours down.

It's just human nature. Humans have developed and evolved with women raising children and men providing for them. It's not politically correct in the modern day, but this is the reason why it is like that.

Women are also more likely than men to grow up thinking about having a family, thinking about raising children and looking after them. There is a reason why little girls have dolls that wet themselves and need their nappies changing, and boys don't - it's because girls are naturally more inclined this way.

Think about the "WAG" culture too, many women actively desire to be the (non-working) partner of someone rich and famous. I don't remember ever hearing about men aspiring to be a "HAB" ("Husbands and Boyfriends", I've just made the term up because I don't think it exists). Wanting to sleep with a famous woman, yes, but wanting to be a house husband for them, no.

Many women go on maternity leave with full intention of coming back to work, but then find they actually prefer the job of raising their child themselves.

We can deny it all we like because we think it's sexist, but it's basic human nature. (Indeed, it's like this with most animals - the female raises the children, the male supports them.)

I'm pretty sure with most animals, the male fucks off and has nothing to do with the offspring.