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?

Eolian
I think you're perspective is shared by many SAHPs, but it seems to be something that isn't recognised by those who think that men and women not taking career breaks equally reflects that penalises women over men.

Full time, high paid work is very rarely easy and has all sorts of pressure that SAHPs don't generally experience. Of course SAHPs have challenges and stresses, but these are different in nature.

Sorry; wasnt clear at all in my last post.

I meant that although women are more likely to take career breaks than men, this isn't necessarily bad for women. A career break and the ability to work part time outside a full-time full-on career is something that many women value, and due to cultural expectations, is something more accessible to women.

Interesting. DH (SAHD) thinks he has the worse deal. I disagree and would love to not work FT

I think the norm is slowly changing . Many of my friends either split care equally or have the man as the primary care giver. Several have also taken advantage of shared parental leave. Granted several are educated beyond degree level and have invested heavily in their careers but not all. Whatever works best for each family. The important thing is that policies and affordable high quality childcare are in place to allow couples to make the right choice for them - which might be not working out of the home, working full time or part-time.

In other words, full time working hours are shite for lots of people, both women and men. People wanting a reasonable balance between work and home and more work flexibility can be economically expensive, though, as you can see from negotiations on the doctors' new contracts, as more part time working and greater flexibility would mean you need to train more of them to cover the same work and they all want to be paid enough to live on. And high quality, affordable childcare is definitely not available for all who would like it. You have to squeeze those providing the high quality childcare until their pips run dry if you want it to be affordable and then not enough people capable of providing genuinely high quality care will be wanting to do it, because it's not paid enough to live on. So, you raise salaries, then no-one can afford it...

People are saying that women giving up work or going part time is a bad thing?? Why??

Surely if anything it's a bad thing for men becasue they are more likely to keep plodding on at work full time?

Working and earning money is not the be all and end all of life people.

My husband is a contractor so doesn't get any paternity benefits. Plus he earns a lot more than me (mainly becasue he's a contractor). I've gone back part time in the end, because that's what I want to do!

I think the 80% contracts is a nice idea and it's good that parents can now take shared parental leave.

But women are biologically designed to be the primary care giver to small children. Modern lives mean that doesn't work best for all families and they should have flexibility in the work place to do what works for them. But it doesn't stop the fact that a majority of women will choose to take a step back from their career after having kids.

Speaking as a part timer myself, women giving up work and reducing our hours certainly makes us, as a class, poorer. Especially in retirement. I still don't want to work full time either, and in my family neither does my DH, but we're kidding ourselves if we pretend this isn't happening.

What? Anyone working less will make you poorer in the long run? Having kids in general makes us poorer. If you don't want to be poorer, don't have kids.

I do think that men can be seen as at the disadvantage rather than women because we give birth and so we get the first bite at maternity/ paternity leave and we don't want to give it up. I have a far better quality of life than my husband.

Huh. The first six months of babyhood are not a fun time. Plenty of women then go back to work full time after that. Maybe some of them would rather their husbands had taken those six months, rather than getting any of the cushier, later years...

Several posters have mentioned breastfeeding. But only 1% of babies are breastfed past their first birthdays, so surely this can't be a contributing factor in the vast majority of cases?

No, I don't think it is. I went back to work FT when dd was 6 months, but continued to bf her until she was nearly 3. No expressing either.

Some of the comments on this thread are utterly depressing. I had hoped that my dd would grow up in a more equal society. Clearly, we're not there yet.

What? Anyone working less will make you poorer in the long run? Having kids in general makes us poorer. If you don't want to be poorer, don't have kids.

Erm right. Unless you're a man, I guess.

I mean seriously, that's very dismissive of what's an important point. IMHO you made a good point about lifestyle factors, but your analysis completely ignores finances. Which is also important if you're trying to argue, as you were, that women working less isn't a bad thing. We need to consider both aspects.

roundabouttown, I think guineapigs post is an extreme example of where some of the thinking in this thread could take us - backwards.
I agree that it is terrible that caring professions are not as valued in society and woefully underpaid, but your rallying against the importance placed on economic income should count for parents of both sexes, yes? Should we not strive for a society where a father can also take time to care for and nurture his children? As PP have pointed out, there are people doing the same job where it is possible for the woman to go to 4 days a week upon becoming a parent but seemingly no way the man can

I see where you're coming from philoslothy but I never found the first few months the most interesting or fun time with children- that comes later on when they're talking, playing and there's more interaction.
I can see why once the children are older, more independent and in nursery and school, being at home
Is the far easier deal, which I suspect is why some women hang on to part time hours even when their kids are virtually adults!

Personally I'm glad I stepped back up to full time from 3 days when my youngest turned 4 because I'd probably have found it very hard to step up if I'd got used to only working part time with all the kids in school.

It's enabled me to have career progression which realistically would have been less likely as a part timer and also to retain a good salary and pension. The plan now is early retirement - probably continuing to do some part time work- for both of us.

Sorry I don't seem to be able to quote on my phone.

Fuckit, I do see your point but as long as we have choices / options then I don't think it's a sexist issue. IF women feel forced to leave work then thats not good. But how often if that the case? Much less likely than it being through choice.

I think people focus too much on things being equal when it's not realistic for that to happen - there will never be as many men being SAHP and mums, which is fine as long women don't feel like they have to / should stay at home or work part time.

I have similar feelings on equal pay. While the above is happening, which it always will, I don't see how you can expect women to get paid as much as men. Having said that if you control for all these child related factors then they should get paid the same.

Yes, it would be good for it to be easier for men. The thing is, it isn't particularly easy for women, either, though, and it often damages their careers, so the "ease" of women doing it has more to do with them being more willing to take the economic and career hit than men are - which data suggests that they definitely do. It is just as easy for men to leave the workplace altogether for several years as for women, of course. I'm not convinced men would find it harder to get back into the workplace again, afterwards, than women - there is plenty of low paid, low status work out there for people who have been out of the job market for years, which is what many women go back to after a break. It's just that it is not really ideal that this is all people are thought to be good for, or think they are good for, if they have taken time out. And society does frown more on men taking on low status jobs they are over qualified for than women - it doesn't mean employers wouldn't employ them, though, just that they may well hate the diminishing of status more than women do.

That was addressed to Minesnotahighhorse, btw.

Roundabouthetown- I am middle management in a school and it's definitely true of every school I've worked in that the low paid support staff jobs are almost entirely done by women, who in many cases are over qualified for them... LSAs, lab technicians, SMSAs etc. Where I currently work we have 5 lab technicians, 4 are graduates. Only one is male and he worked in industry for years and is doing this job as he's now part retired. In contrast the women have been doing this job for years.

Do women find it easier to accept being 'underemployed'? I honestly don't know; I suspect some women are genuinely happy not to have the cut and thrust of a higher powered career but I also come across many women who are frustrated because they know they have the intelligence and capability to work at a higher level. And of course there's the issue of pay and pensions, and women are far more likely to have insufficient funds to tide them through their later years.

Ultimately I hope we move towards a society which is more accepting of men and women having greater equality. I have daughters and son (in their 20s now) and I'd find it sad if they felt pigeonholed into being breadwinner or SAHP. I believe men and women have far more in common than they have differences when it comes to ability to parent and to work

I don't know where to begin with buckyou s posts. It's amazing how myopically people interpret choice in the here and now without realising how entrenched choices are in historical structures and practices, in child raising, how it's handed across generations, shaped by circumstances and culture that spans centuries.

I don't see how you can expect women to get paid as much as men.

These statements coming from a woman - anyone - in 2016. Perhaps someone else can do this, I do not know where to begin

There's no biology in post the first 6 months. You can balance work & BF. Brokenbiscuit and me are proof of that!

I agree it is possible to express post 6 Months and work but I'm glad I didn't. My daughter didn't like food at all and didn't eat much until 9-10 Months so still breastfed through the day until about 11-12 months. Yes, I could have expressed, or had formula or she could have compensated by feeding a lot overnight but for our family it was better I was there to feed her. If I had to go back to work I would have done but luckily we had the choice.

I don't judge anyone for going back to work or not. I hate the implication that if a woman chooses not to work or work less it makes her somehow inferior or a rubbish feminist.

There is little I find more aggravating than claiming that, "I managed it, so anyone can."

Agree, but equally it's probably a small minority of mothers who feel they will disadvantage their child by not being around to bf their baby beyond at 11/12 months at every point in the day.

Most babies will happily drink from a sippy cup at several months old, even if they can't drink well from a bottle. And many women who returned to work after 12 weeks (which was most of us who returned to work in the 80s /early 90s continued bf long term. Remember, long maternity leave of 6 months and more is a very recent thing. So while there will be exceptions to every rule, i would hate to think women are being put off the idea that bf isn't compatible with working. Besides, there is a clear correlation between bf rates and socio economic status and you'll probably find that the professional woman who has returned fo work is likely to be bf her baby.

Of course that should be 'put off the idea that bf IS compatible ...'!