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!?

The studies are interesting though because they challenge some of the societal expectations. A couple might still decide that it suits them better for mum to give up work and for dad to earn, because mum is more attuned to their children. But these studies highlight the extent to which that’s a personal choice (influenced of course by societal norms) but not rooted in any biological need for it to be that way.

Oh, I certainly can when you peruse the relationships boards and read just how many men..........blah blah blah

The relationship board primarily attracts threads from people with problems and issues in their relationship. The majority of posters on MN are women. Therefore the majority of threads on the relationship board will be started by women who are having problems with their partner who invariably will be a man. If you think that board is representive of the general population you are not thinking logically.

So if it's purely society that determines that the mother is usually the one to be the main carer for her young, why do our closest relatives, the chimps, not have stay at home dads? Why is the mother that feeds her baby, protects it, keeps it warm, and teaches the baby to fend for itself? Why is this pattern repeated throughout most of the animal kingdom? Why should we be different?

The only difference in my view is that we can objectively analyse our own destinies where animals can't. We are the only species that can make a choice to act against what we were biologically programmed to do.

Yes, fathers can feel a bond to their babies, but can that bond be the same as a mothers? The mother carried the baby, felt the baby grow inside her, her hormones which govern her emotions are changed by the birth and the pregnancy, her body is able to feed the child and in doing so her hormones are yet again building that bond to her child. Oxytocin levels might be present in men holding a baby, but they are also present in a man holding a kitten. His body is in no way changed by his wife having a baby like that of a woman.

Of course, men can care for their children just as well as a woman- because they can make that choice- but it might not be the nature choice for many.

I chose to be a SAHP parent because I knew that going back to work would mean my baby would then be cared for by a person who had no emotional attachment to that child. In no way can a childcarer provide the same level of care as a parent. Sacrificing my career for a time was worth the risk in my estimation. The hours spent with a child before they start school is enormous if you are a SAHP. Why would you want a baby or small child to be with someone else for more hours than they are at home with you?

I think the problem is that women are pressured by society to work, the presssure to be independent of a partner is enormous- just look at this thread! How many of us would stay at home with their children if they could guarantee financial security?

1ndig0 What evidence would you like if anecdotal, surveys and research aren't sufficient? What makes your individual circumstances more valid that mine or TooSassy's?

I know my DH wouldn’t have had the patience to be a SAHD. To this day, I’ve never really left him overnight with the kids I don't have the patience to be a SAHM that has nothing do with gender. I don't know a single dad who can't be trusted to look after their children overnight. My DH manages to cope when i work away just in the same way i cope when he works away.

They got a call or were ‘told’ by their wife/ partner that she no longer wanted to work and they supported that. They are tired, fed up of not seeing their kids and if they had the choice, in a heartbeat they would happily share childcare if someone else was contributing in real financial terms towards the running of the house. They feel very real pressure and you know what I feel sad for them

This is my sense.

No question that working women are still getting screwed over when it comes to the division of labour at home, but equally, an woman who becomes a long-term (and then usually, permanent) SAHM can often wind up as an overcorrection to this problem.

Good friends of ours are now getting a divorce, he's a high-flyer. had a stressful role and downgraded a couple of years ago because he wanted to spend more time at home with the kids. Rocky marriage to start, now far less money, and she's in a right pickle because kids want to live with him.

Pretty unusual course of action, yes. Not an unusual sentiment, though, in my experience.

So if it's purely society that determines that the mother is usually the one to be the main carer for her young, why do our closest relatives, the chimps, not have stay at home dads? Why is the mother that feeds her baby, protects it, keeps it warm, and teaches the baby to fend for itself? Why is this pattern repeated throughout most of the animal kingdom? Why should we be different?

Because we aren't chimps...because, you know, evolution.

The only difference in my view is that we can objectively analyse our own destinies where animals can't. We are the only species that can make a choice to act against what we were biologically programmed to do
Again, women are not biologically programmed to be the primary carer.

Yes, fathers can feel a bond to their babies, but can that bond be the same as a mothers?

yes

The mother carried the baby, felt the baby grow inside her, her hormones which govern her emotions are changed by the birth and the pregnancy, her body is able to feed the child and in doing so her hormones are yet again building that bond to her child. Oxytocin levels might be present in men holding a baby, but they are also present in a man holding a kitten

The spike in hormones is a temporary change in order to facilitate bonding. Once levels return to normal the bonding happens by caring for the child and spending time with them. Men and Women can do this equally.

Of course, men can care for their children just as well as a woman- because they can make that choice- but it might not be the nature choice for many
It is a choice for many, many families.

I chose to be a SAHP parent because I knew that going back to work would mean my baby would then be cared for by a person who had no emotional attachment to that child. In no way can a childcarer provide the same level of care as a parent. Sacrificing my career for a time was worth the risk in my estimation. The hours spent with a child before they start school is enormous if you are a SAHP. Why would you want a baby or small child to be with someone else for more hours than they are at home with you?

That is your choice. It is no better or worse that the choices made by parents who choose to work and use good quality childcare.

I think the problem is that women are pressured by society to work, the presssure to be independent of a partner is enormous- just look at this thread! How many of us would stay at home with their children if they could guarantee financial security?

How many of us are working because we LOVE our jobs? Lots. That pressure does not exist for everyone. Stop making assumptions.

@BlaaBlaaBlaa
That is your choice. It is no better or worse that the choices made by parents who choose to work and use good quality childcare
I know this will sound inflammatory, but I think most WOHPs and SAHPs do think their decision to work or stay at home is superior to the alternative. After all we all make these choices based on a range of pratical and ideological considerations and part of this will be how we view childcare. I don't think it's wrong for a SAHP to state that they believe a parent caring for their own child is better than using good quality childcare, in the same way that WOHPs can state the opposite belief. I think insisting we all must view these quite distinct and different choices as being indisputably equal is a bit unrealistic.

Blaa - I don’t think my anecdotal evidence is more valid than yours or anyone else’s, but it is what it is and my experience is that I can see no evidence, in real life, from any of the men I know, that caring for babies or young DC comes as instinctively for men as it does for women. I do believe that men and women have far more in common than not, but that this is one of the differences. That’s not based on any research, just my own life experience and self-knowledge and Im being honest about that.

Anyway, if you talk about “society,” where does this evolve from if not human instinct? If men and women were truly equally predisposed when it comes to child rearing, the “tradition” or habit for women to be primary / default carer would never have arisen in the first place and nobody would have any concept of it. Human nature shapes society - it’s not something arbitrarily inflicted on us. Why is it that there’s no society on earth with the tradition of men being primary caregivers - is this pure coincidence? Can we put it all down to “the patriarchy?” Or could it possibly have something to do with human biology and an innate psychology that runs deeper than this?

I can't believe how horribly nasty this thread has turned.

Why the hell does it matter whether a woman stays at home full time, works full time or works part time as long as it works for her family. We should be sticking together and supporting each other, not bitching like a bunch of playground kids!

My original post wasn't to discuss whether or not my friends husband should fuck her over because she was a stay at home mother to their children. Yes she was. That was a choice they both made. She did everything at home and he never had to lift a finger. He didn't have a tough life because he left the house and went to work everyday and she didn't have a tough life because she was the housekeeper/ nanny / cook (which are all perfectly accepted professions IF you are being paid for them but 'lazy' if it's your own home and children!)

Some Mums want to work, NEED to work and some Mums don't. They might want to be the ones who drop and pick up their kids from school and be the housekeeper and cook, or maybe financially it works better for the family if the mother doesn't work. Maybe the mother faught tooth and nail for her career and wasn't prepared to give that up completely when she had children. Each family has their own reasons for the choices they make for THEIR family.

I wonder how many men are out there ripping shreds off each other because one chooses to work and one stays at home!? I'll have a guess and I'd imagine it's very close to none!

Just please stop beating each other down. I asked a question and I now have my answer;

No, not all men, but some, maybe more than some. And some women too.

Also that people change when things get nasty and money is a HUGE part of that nastiness.

I am disgusted reading some posts on this thread. What utter contempt for the important work women do nurturing their families and fostering well-being for their nearest and dearest. Shows everything that’s wrong with our society. Some poxy monkey job, doesn’t matter doing what, as long is it gets one a pay check at the end of the month, is considered more worthy that THE most important job there is, caring about the people you love and bringing up the generation of tomorrow. What can possibly be more valuable than that? What will you remember on your deathbed, folks, your all-important job which forgot you ever existed 5 mins after you walked out the door?

If women have got their priorities so wrong, I am not even remotely surprised that men put zero value on caring about others. Does it pay you hard cash? Fuck it then. I get my self-worth from doing whatever meaningless shit in the corporation of greedy sods. Now that’s the way to go!

Also, just to add. My friends in my OP were very comfortable financially. The woman working would of course added more money to the pot but it wasn't money they needed. The man was not about to take a demotion at work to make his work life any easier, in fact, if she had gone back to work his life would have become significantly more stressful because suddenly he would have had to use his annual leave to cover school holidays or pay for summer camps and help out at home. He was not prepared to do that.

Maybe this whole break up will be the making of her. Now she can go and work like she's wanted to for a while and he might have to step up in the parenting department My concern always was his lies and deceit which will ultimately affect those children.

Flynn - as I said earlier, even if toyr friend had been working, the DH would have simply used that to create another variation on the “woe is me” narrative - “Oh she was always working. We were like ships in the night, we were. No home life. We lost our connection.” How many times have we heard men come out with this crap when it suits them? The fact is, he’s had his head turned - end of.

Which is exactly what I said in a previous post, he is just using the 'money' as a stick to beat her with because he can and apparently that's ok to some people because she really should have been out at work with kids of that age.

He wants something new and exciting so he's using what he can and a lot of society will back him because he's the big money man and she's the lazy stay at home parent. It breaks my heart.

I really don’t think many people will back him to be fair.

Particularly despicable to have taken his DC out if their school. Divorcing your wife is one thing and that’s more than enough emotionaldusruprion for kids without making them move schools to boot.

I know two men who have left their wives in similar circumstances (both affairs). In both cases, they kept up the school fees. Why would you want to punish your children for your mistakes?

Both the divorced wives now have new partners. One stayed in the house and got a divorce settlement if a few million. The other one used her substantial settlement to take her children back to Australia for a more simple life and free schools / family support and she left the DH with the OW to get on with it. He now sees his DC at Xmas only.

Until men can produce breast milk they haven’t evolved to be the primary carer- modern science has developed the technology to allow them to be!

Also, just to add. My friends in my OP were very comfortable financially. The woman working would of course added more money to the pot but it wasn't money they needed. The man was not about to take a demotion at work to make his work life any easier, in fact, if she had gone back to work his life would have become significantly more stressful because suddenly he would have had to use his annual leave to cover school holidays or pay for summer camps and help out at home. He was not prepared to do that.

Your post doesn't make a lot of sense. Either money is no object and they pay for summer camp, or money is an object and her salary would be useful.

Until men can produce breast milk they haven’t evolved to be the primary carer- modern science has developed the technology to allow them to be!

Breast feeding is a choice. Science has developed a solution - it's called formula.

@AlaskanOilBaron you read my whole post and you chose that to pick out!

I fucking give up.

It’s also quite possible to work and to breastfeed :)

Also, i response to bumpitys post, there’s something fundamentally wrong with anyone thinking they can generalise from their own specific circumstances. A woman may feel it’s better for her family for her to SAH (or to WOH) but it’s simply not true for her to draw any general conclusion from that, that’s it’s ‘better’ in general terms.

And besides, it’s perfectly possible that many women believe it will be equally good for their own children either way - SAH or WOH, and it’s purely circumstances which dictate what they decide to do, eg cost of childcare.

I don’t actually believe it was ‘better’ for my children that I worked, neither do I think it was ‘lesser.’ They’ve grown into happy successful adults and I believe they would have done if I’d been a SAHM too. They had a different experience but that doesn’t mean it was better or worse.

I am disgusted reading some posts on this thread. What utter contempt for the important work women do nurturing their families and fostering well-being for their nearest and dearest. Shows everything that’s wrong with our society.

Where is the contempt? Why is it disgusting to explain that women do not have the monopoly on childcare? Women are not born with an innate ability to care for children just as they aren't better at housework.

Some poxy monkey job, doesn’t matter doing what, as long is it gets one a pay check at the end of the month, is considered more worthy that THE most important job there is, caring about the people you love and bringing up the generation of tomorrow

Not all jobs are 'poxy monkey jobs' as you so charmingly put it. Some offer real value to society. Just because you work doesn't mean you stop being a parent. It doesn't mean that working is more important than family. It's just that some people have chosen to do both. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!! Just like there is nothing wrong with choosing to give up work and become a SAHP.

What will you remember on your deathbed, folks, your all-important job which forgot you ever existed 5 mins after you walked out the door?

Again, it's not either/or. You can remember more than one thing.

If women have got their priorities so wrong

That is a disgusting comment. You should be ashamed.

If women have got their priorities so wrong, I am not even remotely surprised that men put zero value on caring about others. Does it pay you hard cash? Fuck it then. I get my self-worth from doing whatever meaningless shit in the corporation of greedy sods. Now that’s the way to go!

I don't know any men like this. And again, it's not black and white. You can get self worth from a range of different things. Are childless people devoid of self worth? Or are they allowed to find self worth from their job because they don't have children?
But of course, its those pesky women getting ideas above their station that cause men to not bother with family life. Maybe we should return to a time where women give up work after they get married. Would that work for you millions

Blaa- yes that's what I said- modern technology!

@AlaskanOilBaron you read my whole post and you chose that to pick out!

Your posts are so emotive I'm not sure where to start, but the comment I highlighted made me think that perhaps your friend was not relaying the situation faithfully.

Because it doesn't make any sense.

“I know this will sound inflammatory, but I think most WOHPs and SAHPs do think their decision to work or stay at home is superior to the alternative”

I do have to agree with Bumpity there - the evidence is for all to see in these threads! But also, I agree with Hub that it’s probably more to do with the facts that women just can’t relate to something they have no / little experience of. I’m sure if I worked 9-5 ish hours every day and this was the norm for my family, I too would wonder what SAHMs do all day while the DC are in school. That’s perfectly understandable, as far as I’m concerned. By the same token, I sometimes wonder how I would stay sane if I had a OTH day job on top of everything else. For instance, in the last fortnight, one DC has had 5 different eleven plus exams in different schools and it’s meant loads of ferrying around / prep. I think I’m more drained than her. God knows how I could have done this I I’d been due back at work on 2nd of Jan or whatever - I would have had to take additional holiday or something. Another DC has GCSE mocks, so I’ve been able to take him in to school when the exam starts at 11am; make sure he’s had scrambled eggs or something for breakfast; help him revise and stop him panicking, rather than leaving him to get himself out in the morning. Another DC has needed input at school for other reasons and there have been a few meetings related to that. DH has been in Asia. Basically, the truth is, people fill their time and “take it to the max” whatever they do. If you’re at home, the DC maybe come to expect more and so does the DH in general, so it all becomes a vicious circle and it’s maybe because of all the “extra” demands (particularly if you have several DC), you wonder how working women can manage. I don’t think the teen years are easier than the toddler either, just different.

If women weren’t biologically programmed to be the primary carer, men would have been able to get pregnant, carry the baby and breastfeed. Last time I checked they can’t. Biologically.

I have heard it all now!

I can't think of any other species of mammal where the mother buggers off leaving the father to look after the babies- it's bollocks that females aren't supposed to be the primary carer, we'd have died out as a species if it was up to men to raise children!