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?

^
Right from early childhood, girls tend on average to be more dutiful - work harder at school, more likely to sit still when told, jump through the hoops set up for them... Why?^

There are some interesting studies that show that from the time people know the sex of their baby - even if not yet born - they unconsciously talk to/about it differently dependent on whether it's a girl or a boy.

Boys are much more likely to have words like 'strong' used about them; parents and teachers are more likely to say 'boys will be boys' about rowdy behaviour. We shape children by what we expect of them.

So, interestingly, women are the instigators of this early shaping of identity, as they are the primary carers of babies and small children in this country.

Should the primary caregiver of babies and young children be less of a risk taker than the one looking for prospects outside of the home? Or can we all switch on and off our capacity for risk taking, depending on the context? How do we learn how to take calculated risks? Does having children diminish our appetite for risk taking? A large part of gender identity, after all, has revolved around the concept that the female tries to provide security and stability and the male takes more risks. Are we trying to create a world where men take fewer stupid risks and women take more bold, calculated risks, and everyone keeps an eye out for the children at the same time? Or are we wanting a world where it is acknowledged that not all men like taking risks and not all women like nurturing? I.e. Are we rejecting the idea of specialisation, that you are either a nurturer or an adventurer, or can only be good at one or the other if it is trained into you from an early age?

konyaa what about the theory that women pick partners that are more educated/achieving than them so the relationship imbalance is selected and present from the start? In our case I could earn as much as my DH if I traveled a lot and worked a lot of hours to get myself some good recent experience but DH has 2 more degrees than me and can earn that money doing fewer hours than I would need to do, so it's more efficient for his career to be put first.

round isn't the truth that it's a complicated combination - you can be a person that's somewhat good at nurturing, and train to make yourself better in this area but you'll never be as good as someone that's very good at nurturing from the start? I've gotten better I feel with my DC as I've gotten more experienced at childcare, but there are still other parents I see with their DC and think they just have an instinctive knack with children of selecting the right strategy for the right circumstance I'll never get to. So we can reject specialization but people will always have different talents.

My husband does a job which does not allow for career breaks. Yes this is illegal and lip service is paid to time off after a baby is born but he would have been working from home anyway, just with less money coming in. Incidentally a woman in his position would have got the same treatment by her employer: yes you can take your year off (or whatever) but your career development depends on constant productivity so it's your choice.

When I had dc I was working in a job which paid 1/3 of his salary and did allow for part time work. So we did that.

One thing which is never mentioned (because it can't be codified, it's an individual experience) is how having a baby changes you mentally. I don't necessarily mean PND. I became less myself and more the baby's mother. It was a lovely state to be in until I had to work again and found that I did not want to carve into the 90% of my brain that was focused on the baby. Then it was a very painful and difficult thing, to share my head with work I no longer cared about. I'll never know if it was evolution, hormones, exhaustion, whatever.

It didn't last, and I now work full time again. However that was one of the most miserable times of my life. I loathe the characterisation of post-natal women as incapable, or giving up on a solid financial grounding in life, or as pawns of the patriarchy. I found new motherhood to be a huge upheaval - not necessarily a bad one - and as a pampered Westerner with enough money I don't regret that I was able to take time off after I understood that my old job was holding me back (me, personally, not every woman...).

In the discussion about equality, we can never refer to this post-natal state because it looks weak, and because anyway not every woman goes through it, and why give an inch when you know they'll try to get another mile out of us.

I'm better qualified and more experienced than my dh and yet he earns more.

Evidence suggests when women pursue traditionally male careers eg medicine and are successful, the pay and prestige of that profession is lessened. Even if every single girl took stem at gcse, a level and degree and went into a stem career there is no guarantee that those careers would continue to be well paid and prestigious if they became female dominated.

My feeling is it's easier to blame women and to insist they have to change than it is to look at how the systems we find ourselves in could become more egalitarian. I don't think if every woman that has dc went straight back to full time employment as soon as physically fit into a stem profession that maternity discrimination would end overnight. I think it's a convenient excuse to blame women for some of the crap they have to put up with and to dismiss them when they 'choose' to put their energies into their family rather than into a workplace stacked against them. Obviously not all women have the same experience..

In the discussion about equality, we can never refer to this post-natal state because it looks weak, and because anyway not every woman goes through it, and why give an inch when you know they'll try to get another mile out of us.

I'm not sure it's post-natal in the sense of being linked to giving birth rather than becoming a parent - in that my DH experienced similar with both our kids on his return to work (we split the leave both times). Acknowledging that this can be experienced by new parents, regardless of gender, is important, I think.

Of course this is anecdote only - I don't know what other men have experienced after returning to work after a stint as primary caregiver.

Well, it all seems exceptionally confused to me. We are taught that hormones have an effect on our physical and emotional and brain development and affect our reactions to things. We are told men and women have different levels of hormones in general, making men more likely to be prone to competitive aggression, for example. We are then told that the only substantive difference between men and women is that women can get pregnant and lactate, but from then on the real differences end and absolutely everything else is a societal construct. Well, whilst it is easy to accept that the differences between men and women are not that great, by and large, and that we are all on a continuum somewhere, from an extreme version of "femaleness" to an extreme version of "maleness", influenced by a mix of our biology and hormone profile and environmental influences... it is not easy to accept that a tiny window of time during pregnancy and childbirth is the only difference between men and women. So it doesn't seem abnormal that potentially there will always be more women than men interested in babies and nurturing/social roles and more men than women interested in gambling on the stock market and going to dangerous places to build dams and bridges. What isn't inevitable, however, is the way society is set up to reward some attributes - namely those attributed to maleness - so much more than others, and to pretend that those attributes are actually necessary for certain roles when actually they are not.

yes, i'll never understand why there isn't a subsidy to SAHP, we both work FT and of all the childcare options we've tried, for our DC, none has been a good or even close substitute for us being there more. Young children being cared for by their parents whilst under 7 or so ought to be something the govt subsidizes to the same tune it subsidizes nursery, although SAHP pay a higher price overall than just month to month loss of earnings.

Round, do you think Latvian, Cypriot and Indian women have naturally higher levels of testosterone than British women, which leads to their much higher representation in engineering education and practice?

Or do you think that it might be a complex interplay of factors including socialisation, in which hormones play a part (but not necessarily a dominant one)?

I'm not aware of a big hormone spike between the ages of 18 months and 3, for instance, that would explain the marked shift in preference for dolls between those ages (about even in under 18 months, more girls than boys will choose a doll over other toys by 2 but not a massive difference, by 3 there is a big gender gap).

Your point about it being women who socialise children to these norms is interesting. Do you think women are less sociaised to these norms than men? It's interesting to consider the interplay of influences and in particular the non-parental and consequential (eg a girl having the idea that pink is a girls' colour is fairly harmless in and of itself, but when that idea is then used by marketeers to 'code' products as for girls/for boys in ways that introduce or reinforce the idea that caring and domestic roles are for girls - such as dolls and cooking - while action and thinking roles are for boys - such as cars and science sets - then the colour coding has wider impacts).

yes, i'll never understand why there isn't a subsidy to SAHP, we both work FT and of all the childcare options we've tried, for our DC, none has been a good or even close substitute for us being there more.

Because there's nothing in it for the state. Each extra person working creates more economic activity, more work for others (eg a childcare provider, who will then use the money they earn to support other businesses). And they pay tax.

Childcare subsidies make economic sense to the exchequer because they result in more money to the exchequer in the long run, which a SAHM subsidy would not.

I'm not taking sides on whether it's morally right or wrong. Only that it's economically rational.

yes, also I suppose the govt can get away with people choosing to SAH or work PT without subsidizing that, however unfair that is to the parent losing current earnings and future earning potential to support their DC

JassyRadlett - for one, women in engineering are still in a minority in Latvia, just a larger one than in the U.K.. For another, I don't think it is necessary to be as far along the spectrum towards maleness to be attracted to engineering as some people seem to think. As for women being the primary carers of small children and small children showing gender stereotyping early on - women must have a massive role to play in this.

I would be interested to know if men looking after their daughters would engage in quite so much grooming practice and nail painting as many mothers do with their daughters, or if they might try their daughters out on a bit of lego and throw them about a bit more, because they feel more comfortable in that role?

One very good argument against subsidising SAHP is that there is no 'quality control' when it comes to parenting (bar outright abuse)
For every SAHP who nurtures Their child to be intelligent, positive citizens, there will be one who feeds their kids crap and sits them in front of the telly half the day

Ultimately it's in the govt interests for a generation of clever, positive law abiding citizens to be raised. SAHP Don't have a monopoly on this so why should the state fund them? If there were a clear correlation between having a parent at home and higher levels of employment, lower levels of mental health issues etc among their children, then no doubt the govt would be keen to chase women back into the kitchen!
Us WOHM have been around a good long while now and have adult children who are happy and stable, in good jobs and relationships etc

(Not taking sides here either, just responding to the point about why SAHP aren't subsidised to be at home)

JassyRadlett - for one, women in engineering are still in a minority in Latvia, just a larger one than in the U.K.. For another, I don't think it is necessary to be as far along the spectrum towards maleness to be attracted to engineering as some people seem to think.

I agree, but you brought up the role of hormones in the choice of career, and specifically mentioned building dams and bridges as part of that.

If hormones play a dominant role in gendered career choice, you'd expect to see reasonable (or at least greater) uniformity across cultures than exists. A participation proportion that is three times higher is pretty significant, and to me negates the idea that British women aren't choosing engineering because girls naturally aren't as good as maths or physics, or because engineering isn't as attractive a career because their hormones predispose them to something else.

You won't get me arguing that Latvia or Cyprus are bastions of equality for women (let alone Jordan and Saudi Arabia where the proportion of women studying engineering is around 50%). But you need to look at it in the round. For example: About 60% of Latvian women are economically active, vs around 73% of men, so you wouldn't expect the proportion of female engineers to be 50%.

As for women being the primary carers of small children and small children showing gender stereotyping early on - women must have a massive role to play in this.

Agreed. That's why I asked if you thought that women were somehow less socialised to these norms (and thus passing on the socialisation) than men - you seemed surprised by the fact.

If you read my post carefully, you would see I specified the dams and bridges were in dangerous places.

I'm a woman that hates nail polish. I have never worn it (other than as a child whilst trying it on) and my DD insists on having her nails painted - I've lessened her obsession by being so bad at it (and hair styling) but she asks other women to do them for her when she gets the chance! On SAHP subsidies - you could make the symmetric argument about rubbish nursery provision, CM etc, yes they're inspected every so often but not all of those are wonderful palaces of enrichment either and children can be very aggressive with each other when they feel overwhelmed with too much nursery time. Also the emotional argument - (playing devil's advocate - both mine went to FT nursery) maybe sitting at home watching TV half the day is better for the under 4s?

it could also be that STEM subjects are taught better in non-UK countries perhaps? I wonder.

Besides, the more "female" your characteristics, the less you may be attracted to a working environment dominated by men, thus perpetuating the divide. Engineering, in other words, is unattractive because of the men in it. Is there anywhere in the world where an equal number of men care for babies and small children in the workplace?? If there is not, is it because they genuinely don't want to, or because of all the bloody women doing it?...

If you read my post carefully, you would see I specified the dams and bridges were in dangerous places.

Yes - but you seemed to say that the danger inherent in some engineering jobs would make them less attractive to women on an evolutionary or hormonal basis?

Or have I got that wrong?

Yes, I think the greater risk taking element is more common in males than females and am not entirely convinced that this has nothing to do with hormones, albeit societal influence encourages the characteristic more in men.

Engineering, in other words, is unattractive because of the men in it.

Culture and socialisation, then? I think we agree.

On the cultures with majority men primary caregivers, I'm not aware of any. I'm really interested in childcaring roles before the industrial revolution, where most work was carried out close to home and most men and women worked. Really interesting to think/read about how the majority, who were outside the warrior/king model of the ruling class, lived their lives.

Women have long paid a penalty for biology, I think we can all agree with that. The question for me is how much of our current situation, when physical strength and ability to reproduce are less relevant to our economic output than ever before, is due to biology, and how much to history, culture and socialisation.

Yes, I think the greater risk taking element is more common in males than females and am not entirely convinced that this has nothing to do with hormones, albeit societal influence encourages the characteristic more in men

I think there's evidence that behaviour can influence hormones, as well as the other way around. Caveat - am not a behavioural endocrinologist.

It's a fascinating field, but I'm far from convinced that hormones are the dominant, or even determining, influence on the gender split in career/caring choices. I don't think anyone is saying 'zero influence' but equally there is a question of whether the influence of hormones can actually explain the big disparities we see.

Our economic output may have changed, but small, vulnerable children's needs have not changed significantly. It seems instinctive to me that the natural parents would find surrendering care of their offspring to strangers stressful to all concerned, even if an established and strong societal norm. However, well remunerated jobs frequently are not set up to cater for a desire from the parents to remain close to their offspring - so at least one parent has to give less to their job than their employer would like.

Our economic output may have changed, but small, vulnerable children's needs have not changed significantly. It seems instinctive to me that the natural parents would find surrendering care of their offspring to strangers stressful to all concerned, even if an established and strong societal norm.

You're moving the goalposts here - earlier you were talking about whether men or women were biologically better suited to the caring role, not whether children were suited to being in childcare.

It is of course pretty recent that the majority of children had a single stay at home parent, if at all. But since we're going down this rabbit hole, I do find the insistence on the 'stranger' language by some in this sort of discussion quite odd. After all, everyone is a stranger to a baby or child when the child first meets them, regardless of the relationship. I've not met many parents who merrily drop their child off with a different person every day.