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!?

LisaSimpson- really interesting to hear from you as a couple who are using shared leave. What you’re doing is not only unusual where you live... it’s unusual nationally as the take up of transferable leave has been incredibly low.

As a woman in my 50s this feels quite depressing, because all of these advances in legislation towards greater equality are the things we were fighting for back in the 80s and 90s. We only had 3 months maternity leave and paternity leave was non existent. My dh was back at work the day after each of our children was born, which was tough on both of us. I’d have given my right arm for transferable leave like you have; I think it’s brilliant for the child as well as both parents.

I have never met a SAHM who has any concept whatsoever of needing “external validation.” I must know hundreds of women in my position. What does that even mean? At the prep school my DC go to, I would estimate 8/10 mins are SAHMs. It’s not something they dwell on. They know exactly what they’re doing and they get on with it. For my part, I feel privileged that I’ve been able to live the life of my choice within the circumstances I found myself in. I know exactly what I’ve done over the last 15 years and so do my family and tbh, I’ve never even considered myself unusual or that anyone would take a view on it. I’ve never felt torn and never doubted myself. I have never had this kind of conversation with anyone in real life because I can’t imagine anyone would care?

1ndig0 The biggest indicator that 'gate-keeper' parenting exists is the low up take of shared parental leave. Now, i'm not saying that is is the only reason uptake has been so low or even the primary reason (gender pay gap, men not wanting to, societal expectations are more influential) but there are a number of men who would like to spend that time with their child but are being prevented to by their partner.

In the course of my research i've spoken to women about this and there are some who are very territorial over parental leave and resent the idea that they might have to give some of that up.

You have to understand that your personal experience is quite extreme....but you have made the right decisions for you and your family. The research indicates that co-parenting is the the best option all round but you have assessed your individual situation and made choices based on that. It's what we all do.

Just because all of the women you know became less career focused after children doesn't mean that is what is best for everyone. That situation could be unique to your geographical area and the jobs and social norms that are prevalent there.

My experience is the opposite but a lot of my friends work for universities which are very family friendly and there are schemes in place to ensure female academics are not unduly disadvantaged because of maternity leave and it is common for both male and female staff to work flexibly because of family commitments. However, i know that isn't the case for everyone so i don't judge those that decide not to continue with a career.

I also had it drummed into me from an early age to get a career sorted before children as my parents were teenagers when they had me and they wanted me to have a different life. As a result my career is precious to me as I've had to overcome a number social disadvantages to get here. That obviously impacted on my decisions. Doesn't make me a bad parent and doesn't mean my child is missing gout on anything.

Again, your husband reacted the way he did where as mine was the complete opposite. From day one my husband was an equal parent but i couldn't breastfeed so that situation was made easier. I know other people have difference experiences but it's important not to judge and assume your choices and decisions (because they are choices and decisions) are superior to others.

Yes, I've read 3% of couples do it. I have met one other in real life, ever. I don't think that all couples should do it by any means. There are downsides - I've found it very hard to keep breastfeeding, for instance (much more so than I expected when we first planned this) and while for me that's outweighed by the pros, I can completely see why other people would decide differently on that one. I do think it's sad that so few people seriously consider it as an option, though. I have, as I said, had a lot of negativity (lots of faux sympathy as well) from women - my HV said it was 'such a shame' I had to go back and looked disgusted when I said it was my choice!

and by extreme i mean the fact you have never left your children overnight with your husband and essentially don't trust him to be a capable father.

Perhaps relevantly given your post blaa - I'm an academic. I've found that at work no one is surprised I'm back after six months (whereas at baby groups I got frequent astonishment/pity that I wasn't taking the full year) but people are still surprised that DS is with DH - the assumption is always that if I'm back he must be in childcare now.

My ex did but my new partner and his friends who split aren’t like that. My new partner lived in his parents house to maintain ex and dc lifestyle. He was embarrassed when I met him but I really respect and admire him for it

Blaa - no I’ve never left DH with the DC overnight until fairly recently. That is true, but you have to see it in context. For years he was probably away 2-3 nights a week. He runs several companies so there’s no clear distinction between being in the office or at home iyswim. Conference calls happen whenever because of different time zones. He is probably a workaholic and would possibly admit to this himself, but it’s normal where I live. Nobody really works 9-5. Also, since the DC have been all at school, I haven’t felt the need to go away overnight particularly, as I’m very aware and relieved that I can get some “me” time and space in the day. When they were pre-school, I was to shattered to even think about going anywhere!

That's really interesting lisa but also not surprising that the assumption is childcare rather than dad....which is such a shame.

We missed out on shared parental leave by 6 months but if we have another we'd definitely consider it.

We did shared parental leave, I took 3 months and DH took 9. Thanks to that, he has figured out that children need to be fed; that the food does not appear magically and if you don't clean up, the place stays messy. Just like I did, as we were both new parents and I did not have any more experience in taking care of children than he did. It's quite amazing though that women just manage to figure that out, but men simply do not know what to do with a baby, and therefore cannot be expected to do anything.

The problem is we will never get men to step up at home as long as housework/ homemaking/ caring work is seen as non-important, anybody can do it, and something that doesn’t matter. According to PPs, it doesn’t matter if a baby is at ‘quality childcare’ for 12h a day or in their mother’s/father’s care. It can’t be true.

The ongoing devaluing of women’s hard emotional labour and caring work does nothing to bring closer the day when men want to take this type of work on. And it is work. The only difference is it is not paid. We are happy to pay somebody £800-£1200pm for looking after our child, but when a mother does it (and much more), she is a lazy so-and-so. Why would men want to be doing something that’s not even recognised, appreciated or remunerated? Many women refuse to do it too now. I am not surprised.

According to PPs, it doesn’t matter if a baby is at ‘quality childcare’ for 12h a day or in their mother’s/father’s care. It can’t be true

Nobody said that.

I said that high quality childcare can be beneficial. Some else, anecdotally, said she knew of children in childcare for 12 hours. I've never come across that and i've worked with dozens of childcare providers.

My child has never done 12 hours in childcare. The majority of childcare providers don't even open those hours!!

And nobody has said SAHP are lazy...quite the opposite!

It’s great Lisa Simpson’s partner is stepping up. I hope she does come home to a clean house and a dinner on the table, unlike me. I went back FT when my first was 11 months and DH stayed at home with him. He was made redundant a week before DC’s birth and has taken a decision to re-train to completely change career.

So it was a no-brainer for me to go to work and for him to look after the baby. He wasn’t a cracking SAHF though. The baby didn’t walk into a fire thanks goodness, but my DH didn’t do what I did, i.e. essentially made his life revolve around the baby. Baby needs a nap, dinner, baby needs to go for a walk etc so I fit other stuff around it. DH rather had baby fit around what he had to do and tough if baby is tired or hungry and in dire need of sleep.

I had no dinner on the table when I got back from work and I still had to be in charge of laundry, with DH doing a bit here and there. Ditto cleaning the house.

I still had very disturbed sleep during that time and breastfed for quite some time after returning to work.

Now it was a different story when my Mom stayed with us for a few months and looked after the baby. I knew the care she provided was as good as I could ever do. So mental load gone, housework worries gone. I came home and relaxed in the evening, as everything in the house had been done and the baby was happy.

I experienced having a SAHW and it was bloody brilliant while it lasted!! It felt like I was on holiday while working FT.

Men got no idea.

@BlaaBlaaBlaa
I find your posts interesting even though no disagree with many of your opinions.

You seem absolutely adamant that there are no biological reasons why more mothers would adopt the primary care giver role than men, despite (as others have mentioned) it being the norm in the animal kingdom and whilst evidence suggest that cavemen helped to raise the children, women were still the primary caregivers alongside their other roles as hunter/gatherers.

It is not necessarily true to suggest that we have evolved beyond this model as it is fact that men and women remain fundamentally biologically different. These differences will have some impact on our personalities and traits at a population level. Men have been proven to be more aggressive and women have been proven to be more empathetic etc. Generally women's characteristics and traits are more aligned with caregiving than men's. You may argue that this is all down to socialisation enforcing gender norms, but this ignores any impact that sex hormones and genetic differences make. Obviously our physical differences have not developed as a result of socialisation (genitals, breasts etc) , so why assume that physically we are programmed to be different but that mentally we are the same and biological forces have no impact on our behaviours and characteristics?

All of this of course ignores the biological processes of being pregnant, giving birth and breastfeeding and their associated hormanal effects on new mothers. Evolution has honed this process so that women will bond with their new babies. Men are not subject to such a process and whilst they too can of course be incredibly well bonded to their children, nature just does not work in the same way for them.

For all this talk of modern men wanting to be more involved and equal parents, the statistics speak for themselves in that 90 percent of single parents are females and this figure has not changed over the last decade. All this talk of co-parenting is fine, but it ignores that a very large number of fathers don't want to co parent and they fail to pay child maintenance or fulfil their obligations regarding contact with the child. Yes this may be partially as a result of maternal "gate-keeping" but do you seriously think that this is the main driver for this behaviour?

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that all women are destined to be the primary care givers for their children or that men are incapable of fulfilling this role. What I am saying is that I believe that at a population level women are biologically different to men and these differences will prompt more women to want to take on this role than men. Recognising that this may be the case and making sure that appropriate rights and protections are afforded to these women is sensible, instead of simply insisting that men and women are exactly the same and must adopt the primary care giver role in equal measure. That's fine for a family who want to do this but this does not reflect the norm nor necessarily should it.

Finally and perhaps slightly unrelated but when talking about SAHPs it's important to recognise that having a SAHP does not mean that the other parent is any less engaged or has less contact with the child than they would if both parents worked. As a SAHP I look after my DC whilst they would otherwise be in childcare, however when my DH is home we share all responsibilities as we would if I had been at work all day.

You seem absolutely adamant that there are no biological reasons why more mothers would adopt the primary care giver role than men, despite (as others have mentioned) it being the norm in the animal kingdom and whilst evidence suggest that cavemen helped to raise the children, women were still the primary caregivers alongside their other roles as hunter/gatherers

I'm saying there is no biological reason men can't be primary carers. Previous posters have suggested caring for a child is in women's DNA which is simply not true.
One reason cave women were primary caregivers is due to breastfeeding - no formula around then!
Biology ( pregnancy, breastfeeding) and socialisation plays a part.

For all this talk of modern men wanting to be more involved and equal parents, the statistics speak for themselves in that 90 percent of single parents are females and this figure has not changed over the last decade. All this talk of co-parenting is fine, but it ignores that a very large number of fathers don't want to co parent and they fail to pay child maintenance or fulfil their obligations regarding contact with the child. Yes this may be partially as a result of maternal "gate-keeping" but do you seriously think that this is the main driver for this behaviour?

I never said maternal gate keeping was a main driver just one of many. Socialisation, the fact more women give up work to become primary carers, gender stereotypes....and maternal gate-keeping are why more women are single parents. Not biology.
As for men that don't pay for their children. Well they're dicks....that's personality and lack of morals not biology.

simply insisting that men and women are exactly the same and must adopt the primary care giver role in equal measure. That's fine for a family who want to do this but this does not reflect the norm nor necessarily should it

Again, never said they are they same but they are equally capable of caring for children. Also never said they must adopt the primary care giver role in equal measure just that they can. I've also acknowledged that peoples personal circumstances often prevent that from being the case. Co-parenting is the ideal situation but we can't always deal in ideals.

Promoting the idea that biology is the main driver for women becoming primary carers and often suffering huge inequality is dangerous and goes a long way to explaining the poor uptake of shared parental leave, and the lack of men in caring roles.

Bumpers, I agree completely with your posts. Things would have been simple if women could ignore their biological drivers and urges. Men quite simply do not feel or go through the same. They may well have their own version of besotted parent, but they aren’t in a perfect storm of hormones and physiological processes during pregnancy, post delivery and whilst breastfeeding. There is scientific evidence now detailing physiological processes which go on in women’s bodies to help them mother their young. All well documented. Not willpower or attitude related at all. Down to a mother feeding her baby up to 20 times in the night and not remembering it, so she could drift in and out of sleep easily thanks to chemicals released in her body. Men haven’t got that benefit. You try and get them up during the night 20 times, well even 5 times, let’s be generous. They will be good for nothing the following day. Mothers do it FOR MONTHS. They get on with the day, they provide good care for their baby. Evolution designed them so they can.

It is disingenuous and ill informed to suggest there is no biological and physiological differences between the sexes. We have evolved, but not that far yet!

Men got no idea

You have such a low opinion of men.

Down to a mother feeding her baby up to 20 times in the night and not remembering it, so she could drift in and out of sleep easily thanks to chemicals released in her body. Men haven’t got that benefit. You try and get them up during the night 20 times, well even 5 times, let’s be generous. They will be good for nothing the following day. Mothers do it FOR MONTHS. They get on with the day, they provide good care for their baby. Evolution designed them so they can.

If you breastfeed.

Doesn't work like that if you formula feed and share those responsibilities.

I worked for a matrimonial solicitor, it's really, really common to have a secret bank account or hide money offshore . I'd say roughly 60%.I got used to telling women to have a thorough rummage for hidden statements when they rang panicking after the inevitable "I don't have any £/I will make sure you get nothing" talk). The savvy ones had already looked & bought the proof to their first appointment.

Bumpity - I also completely agree with your last post. I would also add to it, that men experience emotions that perhaps women can’t presume to relate to either, such as the “provider” instinct, for instance. A lot of men may suffer depression or mental health problems if they felt unable to function in this way. Who knows how far this instinct is biological or social - you can never really tell. But it exists nevertheless.

Maybe it's because I'm a cold hard robot lady who doesn't love her baby (/sarcasm) but I couldn't breastfeed in the night and not notice. Yes I did do it for months on end - it was beyond knackering and I cried through tiredness most days. One of the reasons I've found it hard to continue breastfeeding while working is that I just can't do the nights anymore, so now we give bottles and share it (DH seems to be surviving). Maybe some women find that breastfeeding gives them magical powers where they don't need sleep but check out the sleep board on this site - I'm not the only one who apparently was absent the day they gave out that woman-power.

Saying that it's inherently easier for women is playing into the hands of the worst kinds of misogyny and is far more dismissive of what women do than any of the people arguing for greater equality in parenting on this thread. It isn't somehow easy for women and hard for men - it's really bloody hard for women, they just are much more likely to get on with it.

When someone decides to split up with their "life partner" they have to mentally dehumanise them a little bit to be able to do it without all the guilt of ripping some poor unsuspecting persons life apart.

Once they've done that it's easy to do the ripping apart in a hugely selfish way - it's not a man thing, it's a human thing.

MillionScarletRoses
Obviously a very bad choice of half the genetic input of your child. I hope if there is a next time you choose more carefully.

Lisa - I do think the first few months of feeding are maybe quite key in establishing a pattern tbh. I admit I always found bf fairly easy; also I adapted reasonably well to just “cat napping” with the baby and I found I has a kind of adrenaline or something that just kept me going for months. The thought of having to get up in the night and warm up bottles, etc, always seemed like too much of a faff and I also found I couldn’t really express milk. So I just went on the baby’s pattern, accepted that was how it would be for a few months, and I didn’t really need DH to be involved in that sense. I think he often felt like a spare part tbh.

1ndgig0 - you said a few posts back that you don’t know any SAHM who need ‘external validation’ - I think you were referring to my earlier post and quoting. The thing is, interestingly, you mis quoted. I posted that one of the documented characteristics of gatekeeping parenting is a a high level of need for external validation.

Being a SAHM (or a SAHD) is no synonymous with gatekeeping parenting.
When a couple have a mutual agreement for one parent to be at home, where both are entirely comfortable with this, and where neither parent claims ‘ownership’ over the child decision-making involving the child- that’s NOT gatekeeping. That’s a mutually respectful partnership.

It’s really important to make that clear because I think some posters are still being overly sensitive as if some of us are attacking SAHM. I’m certainly not. Like I say- where it works for a couple (as it clearly does for you 1ndg0) then that’s great.

Equally, I don’t want to hear that I’m denying my biological instincts or any other such claptrap just because I combined parenting with working. It’s actually a tad ironic because quite a few of my friends saw me as a bit of an ‘earth mother’ type because I breasfed for years. I just wanted to continue working after having my babies and my dh wanted to be as hands on as he could. All seems very normal and no big deal to me.