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?

Some people are better at multi-tasking than others. Continuing with a high powered career, even on 20% fewer hours (if you are lucky enough to have one of these careers where 20% less time does not have a negative impact on your career, your employer or your clients/customers/service users), whilst being the parent you want to be, does not work for everyone. Lots of people feel they just end up rather poor at both - and women tend, in general, to be more self-critical in all areas of their lives and at all stages of their lives than men. Also, once you have disrupted your career with pregnancy and childbirth, it is much easier to imagine life without the career than if you have spent that time without being particularly physically and psychologically affected by pregnancy and childbirth.

All this will not change until a part of parental leave is 'use it of lose it' for dads. Once it becomes normal and expected for dads to take time off, be home, in sole charge of their children, it will also become normal for them to take time off for sickness, go part time etc. And women won't be seen as less committed to work by default, as they might have children one day and they will then likely quit or want part time only - men might like to do the same as well.

It is a lot easier for both parents to reduce their hours by 20% and maintain their position than it is for one person to drop down by 40%. DH and I both do 4 day weeks and the DC are in nursery for 3.

This was what we did, I went back after 7 months (over a decade ago and ML wasn't as generous even though my employer had a pretty decent package for that time). We then both flexed our hours again when DC started school so I did two pick ups, DH 2 and 1 day of after school club.

In that time my earnings have doubled from when I went on ML and I now earn more than DH. I have not doubt that my ability to increase my earning power was due in part to the fact that I was very much doing 'part-time lite'. DH wanted to spend time with DS and was just as good at looking after him (if not better!) than I was on the non-working days.

Interestingly though throughout the school years, even though DH has done much more of the drop offs/pick ups than I do, works nearer school and travels away less than I do, it's always been my phone that school ring if there's an issue. Even after 6 years at a small primary school they seemed surprised that I didn't always answer (not able to due to my job at times) and that if I did answer my response was - ok thanks for letting me know, I will now call DH and get him to come up to school. Somehow it's still assumed that 'mother = primary carer' long past the age where biology has anything to do with it.

roundaboutthetown - I agree with you. I find working full-time and looking after DS and managing a home/bills etc really quite stressful (and I have an excellent husband who does his share) but I know that there are others who manage it fine. I just feel like I end up being a crap/frazzled mum and a not-very-committed employee. I am constantly impressed by how others juggled their lives working and raising 3-4 children, but i'm just not that good at mulit-tasking. The fact is I want to work part time becuase I feel like i could cope better and I want to spend time with DS, but it's quite an unfashionable desire really.

My parents were incredibly successful and career driven. Its was nanny's and childminders all the way for us and I didn't eat my tea at home during the week for years when I was at school. I was also left at home with my abusive brother when we got older. I didn't want any of that for my family, but have had to accept that I will never really be successful unless I am willing to work full-time.

I think yanbu op, it drives me spare that mothers can't 'cope' with working ft but for dads it's expected. Just so odd.

I am a SAHM which was entirely a choice made within the context of a loving relationship and parenting "team"; DH supports me but would have supported me whatever, and the decision wasn't made unilaterally or presented as a fait accompli. However at the heart of it, our desire was no formal childcare until at least 3+ - my mum, DH's dad were SAHPs so perhaps that's why.

I can only speak for myself but it was the absolutely the best choice for us. We knew we wanted a larger family quite close together, childcare costs would have been crippling. DH asked about flexible working when we were looking into our options and part time was 8-12 every day so not really useful. I was not that happy in my job, anyway, but that seems almost incidental. I am also much much better at taking the kids out to groups and running the home. I am sure DH could have learnt and muddled through but I actually enjoy it and garner self worth from it. We were also aware that DH is prone to depressive episodes where I am much sunnier by nature, which makes making friends and finding true joy in the mundane easier for me

I agree Katharina - but I suspect there would still be a lot of dads who would opt for "lose it"

We need to start expecting fathers to want to spend time with their DC and adjust their work accordingly. At the moment that expectation exists of women but not of men.

When a couple announces they are having a baby we should all be asking both of them how much leave they are planning and whether they will go part time afterwards. (Or ask neither of them).

It is a lot easier for both parents to reduce their hours by 20% and maintain their position than it is for one person to drop down by 40%. DH and I both do 4 day weeks and the DC are in nursery for 3.

No, it really isn't a lot easier. Most jobs in most industries are still full time by default. Part time/reduced hours is by special negotiation and not always that easy to get. And it often kills any career progression. So many families either don't have the option of 80% each, or will be better off if one person does 100% (and gets promoted) and the other does 60% (and is "mummy-tracked") rather than 80/80.

in an ideal world, the choice to stay at home or to return to work would be just that - a true choice. of course it isn't, but wouldn't it be great if both mothering and working were valued and supported equally? until women have true equality this ain't gonna happen and both woh and sah mothers will be made to feel guilty and inadequate by various factors of society

anyway, i can't speak for anyone else but i'm a SAHP because:

1. my partner earns twice what i earn. i am marginally more qualified than him but in a low paid field. however, we are married and all money is family money. he
   is very aware that if i didn't exist he'd be paying a LOT for childcare and he truly values what i do.

2. he's a true partner rather than a pathetic man child, so my role
   is equal to his in our relationship. all household tasks, child bedtimes etc are shared. i don't do any 'wifework'. I refuse to be a domestic martyr and i've kept my child-free social life going as far as possible.

3. i think caring for children is devalued in our society - along with most 'women's work'. i grew up with a sahm and i made a positive choice to be one myself. i have two degrees and am working on my third, and i'll be returning to work one day, but right now i'm happy at home with dc.

4. I don't subscribe to the idea that the only worthwhile contribution to the world is an economic one.

5. i'm a feminist and i think the key word here is choice - some
   people love their careers/need the money/like the freedom of earning etc, some people like taking time out to be at home with small kids. there's no right or wrong

Interesting post OP, i have also noticed the same. A lot of people (mainly those older than myself) have asked so will you be coming back to work or will you be part time, as though it's just expected that i will reduce my hours. The answer i give is no as i am the main earner in my family and for me to give up work would mean a serious need to downgrade our house and expenditure, which call me crazy, doesn't make sense to do when there will now be a third person who needs feeding and clothing etc..

My DH has said he also doesn't wish to reduce his hours, but i'd guess that i'm the only person who has asked him the question.

I'm interested in what other posters have said about more utilisation of the shared leave that has been introduced may lead to it being more of a equal position in terms of who is seen as the caregiver. I've decided not to use the shared option and to take all the leave myself, even though financially this would be the better option. It's not because i don't see our baby as joint responsibility it's really just because i want that time off! I think i'll look into it a bit more closely though and see what the various options are now having read this thread.

Another annoying thing that i'm getting a lot, again from people older than me, is how much time will you have off, to which i say 9 months and they say Oh you won't want to come back! Maybe i will maybe i won't want to, but either way it's irrelevant. I go to work because i need money not because i need work, this position will not change once i've had a baby.

I do think a lot of it is generational, even my mother has commented on me working up to my due date as she started her leave at 6 months, which was apparently the done thing in the 70's, but then she was not returning to work and would not have had to consider money as there was no maternity pay. Most people of a certain generation gave up work to become SAHM and i think there is still a big culture of this being seen as the desirable place for a mother to be, hence the constant SAHM/WM slanging matches that seem to occur regularly on MN.

Makes you wonder, how come so many women seem to be doing boring jobs that they hate that pay very little, while all the men are in well (or at least better) paid positions, where they don't mind doing full time? It seems to be like on marriage and name change threads, where all women have boring ugly last names, and all men interesting and pretty ones.

A good proportion of women I've known in professional jobs have been made redundant or demoted or sidelined or given a role incompatible with childcare whilst on mat leave. It's not always a truly free choice. It's took me 5 years to get back to the same pay as I was on prior to mat leave, dh over doubled his wage in that time.

I think this thread maybe also shows that more women than men view work simply as a means of earning money for the family, not a means of giving oneself an identity, or sense of self-worth, or useful role in society. If work takes you away from your family too much, it ceases to feel so hugely beneficial to the family, which is the overriding purpose for doing the work in the first place. Many women get their sense of self-worth through unpaid community activities or the way they are bringing up their own families - focusing on those they know and can make an immediate difference to. This is probably cultural - generations of women have developed their identities and sense of self-worth that way. Generations of men, on the other hand, were brought up to assess their sense of self-worth through external indicators - you were worth what you were paid and the more power you had to affect complete strangers' lives, the better. You were not supposed to be so bothered with your immediate surroundings. Different motivating factors result in different choices.

roundaboutthetown - that may well be true, but I wonder if maybe most women who have that attitude to work only start feeling that way once they've had children and stopped work (at least temporarily). That's definitely what happened to me. My job was my true vocation and it definitely defined who I was. Once I'd had my children I lost interest in doing it except for the money.
Maybe the same thing would happen to many men if they were the ones taking the time off.

I gave up work, as dh earns much more than me, so makes sense.

i agree with Eolian, 10 years ago I would have scoffed at the idea I'd accept a humdrum job that let me spend more time with my family. I like my job, I'd like to get further, but I'm not willing to pay the price of not being there for my DC at the end of days, at some school pick ups etc. It's an emotional issue for me, they miss me, I miss them, I'd be upset if they didn't miss me a bit.

Because IME, women are more likely to want to stay at home with the children...I literally don't know any dads that have expressed a wish to spend the working week with their pre-schoolers, finger painting, feeding the ducks, building sandcastles. My DH is a lovely dad, but no way would he get any real satisfaction from being at home with the children! But the majority of my female friends, even when they were the equal or higher earner, have chosen to do this, and enjoy it (for the most part). Agree with the first poster, it's defo a maternal instinct thing.

Agree with the first poster, it's defo a maternal instinct thing.

The problem with this is that you are basically implying that women who don't want to do this (assuming they have a choice) are not maternal.

I think men might well feel that way, too, but culturally, it's easier for a woman to shrug off her sense of vocation outside of family than it is for a man and harder for her to shrug off the sense of the overwhelming importance of family. Even in the modern era, pregnancy and childbirth are a strain on the body and carry risks. The rest of the world can go hang if it is putting your pregnancy and baby at risk. It would be somewhat peculiar to think otherwise. Once you realise that even outside of your body, your offspring remain hugely vulnerable for a great number of years, it is not always easy to look outwards quite so much, again.

It defo a maternal thing

What about gay male couples who have children?

I don't even think it was the overwhelming importance of family for me, to be brutally honest. I think it was that once I got off the treadmill and saw it for what it was from the outside, I didn't much fancy getting back on it again, particularly since I now had a reasonably good excuse not to (i.e. kids to look after), and my stepping back allowed dh to move up the career ladder without worrying too much about responsibilities at home.

Good point!Although I only know one gay couple who have children (adopted) and they both work full time!!

Well, that is another thing about careers - all too often, it is the political game players who end up on top, not the diligent. So much plotting and scheming can go into climbing the greasy pole, at the expense of doing the best job you can - leave the mess you created for the man or woman below and make sure you blame them for it, too. It's easier to feel you are doing the right thing if you focus on caring for your family, rather than get involved in stressful, ruthless and somewhat unpleasant games of one upmanship which have lost their connection with sense of vocation or family and have more to do with a desire for power and control. It is seldom quite enough just to be good at your job to be noticed and promoted.

You are right minipie, what I meant was "It is a lot easier if both parents can reduce their hours by 20%". I completely agree that it is still difficult to negotiate in a lot of industries and this is something I would love to see change. DH and I are both lucky that we work in organisations where it is the norm (for mums at least) and there are very senior women who work 4 days.

"
Today 12:17KatharinaRosalie

Makes you wonder, how come so many women seem to be doing boring jobs that they hate that pay very little, while all the men are in well (or at least better) paid positions, where they don't mind doing full time? It seems to be like on marriage and name change threads, where all women have boring ugly last names, and all men interesting and pretty ones."
Completely agree (I did change my name ;))
Wide eyed innocence of In OUR family dh happens to earn ten times more than me so it made sense for me to be a sahm to allow him to focus on his career. as if they're in some way the exception rather than the norm. And failing to address why that is the norm.