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!?

Its awful having to live with the guilt whichever way you do it.

These parameters you talk about are driven by societal expectations, gendered stereotypes, the fact that roles traditionally undertaken by women pay poorly and that we tend to place the value of a career on how much it pays.

How many times have read women posting about how *their" wage doesn't cover childcare. However, in a number of cases if that childcare cost was split proportionally like any other bill it might be a different story. Childcare costs as extortionate as they are, are only short term but the long term benefits of maintaining a career can be huge.

I have absolutely no issue with people choosing to give up work when they've had children providing it's a free choice and a joint decision. I've carried out research with women at all stages of career development and what can be depressing is the amount of women who, in hindsight, feel they were coerced into the role of a SAHM.

Whatever their drivers they are current reality for many, and yes, coercion to be sahm very widespread I'm sure; making it impossible to 'choose'.

Some are about local nurseries, or good/outstanding schools, some can't move into expensive areas for schools, some don't have any help at all and simply cannot pay extortionate CC costs no matter how hard they work, some are women alone, and I guess also some are men alone, cc costs are definitely prohibitive. Not all are. They exist nevertheless and prevent a decent, even reasonable or possible work/family balance for far too many still.

Not all are [societal] although some argument that evrrtything is societal I guess, another thesis

This thread is getting completely ridiculous. Yes of course, it is all down to shrewd planning and careful choices on a woman’s part. Her main downfall is being the one to get pregnant, birth children and care for them. Why do you think there are statutory protections for pregnant women? Because some are lucky and sail through it with no complications, so are able to work as normal, but some aren’t so lucky and feel unwell to the point they struggle to function and have to take medical leave. But hey ho, they should plan better and be able to see into the future so we shouldn’t be offering any such protections. Can you see how we should also exonerate Hs from any responsibility towards the mother of his children by the same token. It’s all down to the woman’s bad planning and nothing to do with having children.

million where, in any post on here has anyone suggested there shouldn't be protection for pregnant women???

The reason they are in place are to protect womens careers should they wish to continue to work after the baby is born.

Absolutely

I don't know how you are seeing that from Millions post Blaa

smother nobody makes decisions in a vacuum .... everything is influenced in some way.

Some are relatively easy to change/challenge on an individual level where are some are deeply ingrained and require more structural changes and intervention on a larger scale.

Struggling to see why you say that. All i'm saying is for some its impossible to balance it all. Not everyone gets choices, more normally its the women because, and because of DC, other related factors.

smother which bit of my post do you disagree with?
Women do have choices. Other than pregnancy and giving birth men can do everything....even feeding if you choose not to breastfeed.

The policies around pregnancy are there to protect these choices and to ensure women aren't unduly penalised for the fact that they have to be the ones to carry and birth children.

Society and the structures in place within society restrict these choices.

Well..you see it all the time on MN, WOHM mums telling a SAHM with a dilemma that she's not really working/doing anything.

So lots of men and women think this way.

I have no idea if I was pressured into being a SAHM or not. If would have been very difficult for me to not be around for the DC as and when, but then DH was quite explicit he didn’t want to use nannies etc and thought the DC were better off with me, so was that pressure? Or was it me pressuring him into being sole earner because I was anxious about childcare? Does it even matter if it generally worked out? I think men put a different kind of pressure on themselves tbh.

hbr.org/2018/02/stay-at-home-moms-are-half-as-likely-to-get-a-job-interview-as-moms-who-got-laid-off

Link to study I mentioned for anyone interested...

It depends what you wanted 1ndigo you only said what his absolutes were, what if had wanted a nanny, etc? That's the difference, because if that stopped you going back to work then yes.

blaa I didn't say I disagreed with something, I was struggling to see why you said well, decisions aren't made in a vaccum what were you referencing was what I wondered, as I was struggling to see why you said that, which is what I said, not that I disagreed.

I do disagree that women (all) women really do have parallel choices, they don't, you're not saying they 'all' do are you?

I think that's awful Mistressdee why do men and other women do that! Assumptions that everyone's lives are the same, maybemaybe.

Thanks bumpity That's an interesting read.I'd be very interested to see if the same results can be seen in a UK labour market where recruitment practices and policies around maternity and parental leave are very different.

...and no, they certainly don't have the same choices as men, I think to believe that is unrealistic.

For some men, they only do career, only value WOH, money, status and can only manage heights of career as they simply don't take any responsibility for home and DC, that's women's work to some.

I do think that studies and research need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Everytime I look at something I find it really doesn't apply to us, even though they say it does.

I suppose you can look at them and if there's a tendency for a prticular thing you don't want, you can make sure it doesn't apply to you.
But apart from this they are pretty meaningless and will apply to some and not others.

@BlaaBlaaBlaa
Anecdotally (and I'm aware that this doesn't necessarily prove anything) a few of my SAHP friends have seemingly been the victim of this when they attempted to return to work. One said she noticed an observable shift in the interviewer's attitude when she explained she was a SAHM during the "career break" listed on her CV.

I do disagree that women (all) women really do have parallel choices, they don't, you're not saying they 'all' do are you?

I'm saying these choices are there to be made BUT society and structures within society prevent those choices being truly equal.

blaa I didn't say I disagreed with something, I was struggling to see why you said well, decisions aren't made in a vaccum what were you referencing was what I wondered, as I was struggling to see why you said that, which is what I said, not that I disagreed

I was responding the this post Not all are [societal] although some argument that evrrtything is societal I guess, another thesis I may have misunderstood as your posts aren't always ready to understand but i was simply reiterating what i said previously regarding all choices and decisions being influenced by something.

*and no, they certainly don't have the same choices as men, I think to believe that is unrealistic.

For some men, they only do career, only value WOH, money, status and can only manage heights of career as they simply don't take any responsibility for home and DC, that's women's work to some*

But women do have a choice not to marry or have children with these types of men if they don't want a life of a SAHM.

Of course they all have the same choices, unless you subscribe to what society deems as normal.
A woman could find a man happy to be an equal parent, with 50% responsibilities in running a home.
Depending on the person they choose their life is determined by decisions made with that person. It's just as easy for a woman to say this isn't the life for me, as it is for a man.

Thanks Bumpity had a read of the article and a review of the abstract. Can't get to grips with why article states the return to work for sahm (callbacks) were worse when the rate was 5.4%, as opposed to that for women being 4.9% (=lower callback rate). I'm not sure if the results are really statistically significant anyway, they seem to show there might be sufficient data worthy of further research, as article refers to similar field research as scant. All breaks from work for whatever reason severely impact career prospects is the most significant taking from that study for me, but I think we already knew how closed many are about making that the focus of the person rather than seeing beyond it.

Made an assumption there, as didn't see data for control group, no career break. This might have produced similar take up rate (callback), and this is a completely different population under study to extrapolate the results to the UK.