To think that lots of men think this way

[Flynnshine]

Recently a good friend of my partners has split from his wife of 15 years, they have two young children between 10 and 13.
The husband has decided he isn't happy and wants to end the relationship.

Last week he came over to our house in the evening and I left him and my husband chatting in the living room. I wasn't eavesdropping but I was only in the next room so could hear their conversation. Basically the husband has been planning this split for a while, 6 months before he announced he wanted to end things he sold their beautiful big house and they moved into their much smaller starter home which they had out on rent - they moved the kids out of their private school education and into a state school local to their new home.

They've always had a very comfortable life, beautiful house, nice cars and very fancy holidays a few times a year. They both had good jobs when they first met but when the children came along the wife stopped work and dedicated her life to them. They've done amazingly well at school, both top of their classes, sporty and do two sports for their local borough. They are polite and thoughtful and genuinely lovely children.

The conversation I overheard was the husband complaining that even though the wife hasn't paid towards the mortgage for over 10 years she will still be entitled to half of what the house is worth - he seemed bitter and angry and said he'd been hiding money for ages so she wouldn't get anything when they divorce. He's even planning on quitting his job and becoming self employed so he can fudge his earnings so his maintenance payments could be less. My husband was agreeing with him, I don't know if just to placate him or if that's really how he feels!

This man honestly thinks that because he has been working and paying a mortgage that his worth is so much more. He thinks he has enabled her to not work for over 10 years and that she has been having a jolly all that time. It's like he gives zero shits that he has two wonderful children that he has never had to lift a finger for and she has given her all to those children while he reaps the rewards of that.

Do all men deep down think like this, even if they won't openly admit it? Is money really the be all and end all of everything!?

As I said before, I think society should value good parents. Whether they work or not. After all, it’s raising well adjusted citizens which is valuable to society.

If a couple choose for one partner to stop working and look after the kids and run things at home, surely it’s enough that the WOH values that role?

Possibly one thing that stops us from seeing child care and domestic work as proper work is the traditional separation between work and home

Perhaps this will start to shift as more and more of us work from home?

I’m still curious as to what this ‘value’ from society would look like? If you are a SAHP, presumably you do it because you want to do it. You feel it’s the right thing for your family. (I’m talking obviously about situations where there’s a choice- not people who want to work but can’t.) What extra approbation is it you seek over and above the knowledge that you are doing what you want, and that your partner values it?

Or to turn it around: as a WOHP, I get approbation from the knowledge that it’s what I want to do, it works for my family and my dh values it too. (And of course my salary and pension- but that’s not approbation as such, that’s simply remuneration for doing my job.) I don’t expect anything extra on top of that from society. If I decided to give up work tomorrow and stay at home, why on earth should I expect some kind of extra approval from society?

i’m still curious as to what this ‘value’ from society would look like?

I've always wondered what this means too, I'd have thought it would come from your family.

If I were in charge, I'd be paying people not to have children.

I’m still curious as to what this ‘value’ from society would look like?

People not bleating on about SAHPs being "unemployed" or how working parents "do just the same". It's not so much being "valued" as "not being looked down on or sneered at"

soup same could be said for WOHMs though. It would be nice not to be portrayed as selfish, neglectful mothers.

It's interesting when you look at the discourse used in relation to dads. Nobody every criticises dads for working full time and SAHDs are heralded as heros. Go figure.

We should just respect individual choices.

@Hubanmao
I’m still curious as to what this ‘value’ from society would look like? If you are a SAHP, presumably you do it because you want to do it. You feel it’s the right thing for your family. (I’m talking obviously about situations where there’s a choice- not people who want to work but can’t.) What extra approbation is it you seek over and above the knowledge that you are doing what you want, and that your partner values it?
There's a difference between feeling secure in your choices and wanting those choices valued properly by society. As humans we are all aware of the social hierarchies that exist and put simply I don't think many people would be keen to accept their position on such a hierarchy if it was right at the bottom. SAHPs don't exist in a bubble and it's difficult to devote so much time, energy and effort into something that you see as worthwhile only for the rest of society to tell you otherwise. Imagine if a stigma developed around your chosen career, would you just accept this or would you seek to challenge it?

Also practically the undervaluing of the SAHP role has far reaching consequences. For those (mostly women) who are already SAHPs then the stigma surrounding the role means that it is more difficult to get back in the workplace and to gain roles that reflect their level of experience and qualifications. Of course you would expect to pay some penlity from taking any kind of career break, but SAHPs are disproportionately penalised and this can act as a barrier to getting back to work. If SAHPs were valued more then it would be seen as a valid thing to do that isn't the preserve of the unambitious or those that lack options.

Conversely I also think this removes options from WOHPs as they know that any stint as SAHP would have a disproportionately adverse effect on their careers. If it wasn't such a black mark then we could all appreciate that it's a valid choice some people (men and women )make potentially some of the time to facilitate family life

How are SAHP disproportionately penalised?

All things being equal, someone who is already in employment, with more up to date experience and skills, is going to be a better candidate than someone who has been out of the workplace. That’s a simple fact, and applies whether you’ve been out of the workplace looking after children, or elderly parents or doing diddly squat!

As a start the value would be in the form of being respected for the job you do and not being judged as being the 'lesser' partner as evidenced by all those who don't see why the partner who stays home should be entitled to half. Not being judged by society as not playing as important a role. Having access to half the family money. I personally would go further and argue that employers shouldn't penalise hose who take time out of the work place to raise children and would see that role for the important one iris and value the transferable skills. Being valued as a part the worker, performance decisions based on a prorat'd workload, being given as much access to the interesting work as full time colleagues etc, zero tolerance for the 'only part time' mentality.

@Hubanmao
"Disproportionate" because studies have shown that a SAHP is penalised more for their time away from work than other candidates that have the same amount of time out of employment. Of course a penalty is applied for any career break, but I fail to see why SAHPing should be subject to a more severe penalty than other career breaks...

@thenavigator
It was a joke calm down

Well, as I said fairy, the issue in this thread is about the husband seeing his wife as the lesser partner. Not everyone else. And the majority of posts reflect that, pointing out that he sounds like a twat.

I disagree with your point about employers ‘penalising’ people who have been out of the workplace. Employers want the best person for the job (recruitment is an expensive and time consuming process) and if someone with more up to date skills and experience is the better person, then it’s not unfair if they get a job over someone who hasn’t worked for a while (for whatever reason.)

Your point about transferable skills is also a bit of a red herring because again, while I completely agree that as a parent you learn all sorts of new skills, and also learn a lot about yourself, this applies equally to WOHP and SAHP. A woman going for a job having been a SAHP may well be competing against a woman who has developed all of that skillset you do as a parent but who has also continued to work outside the home too.

Link please bumpity?

Could you link to that research bumpity
It falls into my research area and I’d be really interested in reading it.

Thanks

People not bleating on about SAHPs being "unemployed" or how working parents "do just the same". It's not so much being "valued" as "not being looked down on or sneered at"

People sneer about all sorts, including working parents. Nod/smile/ignore.

"Disproportionate" because studies have shown that a SAHP is penalised more for their time away from work than other candidates that have the same amount of time out of employment.

I'd be curious to see this too.

I find IIT quite hard reading the attacks on millions when said pp goes on to explain how lucky they are with flexible working, excellen childcare nearby, both able to wfh, both having sufficient salary to pay for one two three DC, or more!

One needs an available partner, in the true sense of the word partner, some are lucky enough to have that some have been unlucky in finding their 'partner- (in name only) will not clear up sick, jump up in the night to settle little ones with nightmares, illness, or just unsettled, make meals, clean round the u bend, or even be 'on-call', works close enough to home to even be able to collect a poorly DC from school!

Ask any school, local centre attached to boarding school, and they will tell you how frequently DC are left by parents who insisdc must stay in school despite their illness requiring home or additional medical support! I am not being silky, or patronising to anyone, this is fact, every day parents leave sick DC in school for teachers and other staff to deal with. I am not saying, either, that anyone on this thread does that, but when can two parents have that career, and DC? What parameters have to be in place for that to work.

Personally my career is flexible, to a degree,but my work doesn't accommodate sick DC, I have to travel, all over the UK, and beyond, its consultancy based so I can wfh, SE. Even having an AP it doesn't work well. What if OH cannot leave at the drop of any hat?

I want it all, I want to earn enough money to pay for DC care, but teens need more than physical support, tired dp are not best placed to deal with the unregulated emotions and challenges of a teen, and they need that for healthy regulation.

What's the'ideal', if there was one, and how close can we get to it, and what excludes some from it, or many in the case of abusive men not wanting women to work or making it nigh on impossible to work and do literally everything else at huge cost to themselves and DC?

Baseline is to be lucky in connection with a decent partner
To have work that is infinitely flexible, allowing limitless days off and without notice
Said work to start and finish within time frame that DC see their dp more than a couple of hours a day (i.e. not simply serving meals and getting ready for something)
Not having DC with sen or medical needs requiring frequent hospital appts, gp visits, disturbed nights
Be able to build networks of DMS with same age dc, parties, socials
Afford a cleaner on top of CC
Be able to work in locale
Not have to travel more than half hour away for work.
Career Prospects
Good, no, outstanding schools, and excellent childcare nearby.

I love my career, I love my DC, and I love having a comfy home space, and involvement in sporting activity.

I want a career, prospects, holidays, close relationship with balanced and outgoing DC, be there for them through life's challenges, 'enough' money at the end of it, time to myself to regroup and chill, have an interest.

There are a lot of parameters that need to be met for it to 'function' let alone work well enough for all parties.

Women should not be victim-blaming women for shit men! I am so shocked to see this stealth boasting of how good one is for avoiding the many mysogynists out there. Well lucky lucky them, its the luck of the draw, because even the psychiatrists, psychologists, police,judges, barristers, DC and countless women are made fools of by them, but you know better than all them? .

I read an article on this a while ago so will look for the link tonight when kids are asleep.

Agree Alaskan. We’ve already had the comments on this thread about childcare not being good for children, and WOHP leaving their kids to be raised by ‘others.’

Cuts both ways.

Personally I couldn’t give a hoot what anyone else does. I look at my 3 grown up kids and feel happy that we (ie dh and me) raised them to be the wonderful people they are.

Ok,...local, should read 'medical' [centre], silky, should read 'silly'. Sorry for keyboard antics, bit grrr

As a start the value would be in the form of being respected for the job you do and not being judged as being the 'lesser' partner as evidenced by all those who don't see why the partner who stays home should be entitled to half. Not being judged by society as not playing as important a role. Having access to half the family money. I personally would go further and argue that employers shouldn't penalise hose who take time out of the work place to raise children and would see that role for the important one iris and value the transferable skills. Being valued as a part the worker, performance decisions based on a prorat'd workload, being given as much access to the interesting work as full time colleagues etc, zero tolerance for the 'only part time' mentality.

The problem for all these things is that actually codifiying any one of them is invasive to the point of fascist. They stand up to basically no scrutiny whatsoever.

Isn't it an overstep for a government to say to an employer, you must pay Sally who has taken 4 of the past 8 years off as much as you pay Rose who is child-free and has worked 8 of the past 8 years?

Still worse, what if they're say, mobile app developers and Sally has no clue what's going on in the latest version of iOs and Android and Rose is at risk of being poached by your competitor?

Not victim blaming smother I was married to an emotionally absusive misogynistic twat but I choose to leave and more important NOT HAVE CHILDREN with him. I learnt from my mistakes and married someone who was looking for an equal partner.

Yes I am lucky to have such a flexible job but I worked bloody hard to get it and partly chose that career for its family friendly ethos. Again...planning played a part.

I have no childcare locally other than nursery.

I explained all of that because millions refuses to believe that working parents can be present for their children and available to care for them. I was proving they do. I never said it was the norm or even trouble free but it can be done.

But apparently I have a ‘unicorn’ husband and ‘unicorn ‘ job....

I think there is often a bit of a changing of expectations that needs to happen if you're divorcing. It's the swap from being a partnership to being two separate people who co-parent with two separate households.

People should organise their marriage however works best for them and their children, but those where there is one WOHP and one SAHP often have an additional adjustment to make in terms of career/ childcare in the event of a divorce.

The WOHP can argue that they will not be able to continue to support the former household as they did because they will now have to also fund a second household. However, they will have to accept that they will have to take a subsequent step back in their career plans and maybe even change jobs entirely because they will now be responsible for 50% of the childcare (pick ups/ drop offs/ sick days etc).

The SAHP may well be expected to take paid employment after the divorce to fund their own household but cannot be made to retain responsibility for 100% of the childcare as well.

If for any reason the WOHP does not want to take a step back at work or cannot take on their 50% of the childcare responsibility then they must try and negotiate accordingly.

What seems to happen in all the hurt and anger of a divorce (I know, I've been there!) is often that both people feel their own work/ childcare balance should somehow remain unchanged. If one party didn't want to divorce in the first place, this must seem doubly cruel, especially if it means children needing externally-provided childcare where they didn't before. But if a divorce is going ahead, then both parents need to accept the balance will change.

bumpity newspaper article or actual research? Cos its Not a concept I’ve come across before.