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!?

but if you could do the job before, it only requires a few months in role again; if you are the woman that could do all that before, short of a brain injury you are perfectly capable of doing all that again. I mean all work too, I don't mean, divisions between 'career' jobs and everything else, just whatever your employed role is, otherwise it is, or should be counted as discrimination

The problem is, in some sectors and jobs a significant gap in employment will also mean starting at the bottom again because your skills and knowledge will most likely be out of date. Someone without a significant gap in employment is more likely to be employed. That's not discrimination.

At the moment, it seems to me as if women's have been viewed as conveying equal rights to those given to men, to ^ensure a level playing field', when clearly either end of the field looks very different, and shouldn't be flattened but worked with.

Something like pumping breast milk for instance, can be a soul-destroying task, and its truly working against female milk production mechanisms, biology. Yes, we have devices that emulate that as much as possible, and that can work well for some, but I don't believe its a good enough solution for all, and for some signals the end of bf.

My point there was that it is far easier to catch up; its not, and shouldn't be a block on women returning.

There will be some roles where stepping back for a year would have more significant impact, but I don't believe that it makes you incapable, I think its a perception, that's easily overcome. Employees are given sabbaticals, etc.

I think ts too easy to just to use that as an excuse. The capabilities override mostly.

Smother don't think short term absences are the issue......a years maternity leave doesn't have a major impact. However, years out of the workplace does.

It's not about capability. You don't suddenly become incapable of working just because you are a parent. However, if you choose to become a longer term SAHP then you need to accept that your career will take a hit. It's not a necessarily a bad thing but you can't expect to have 5 years out of the work place and then go back to where you left. It doesn't work like that.

No it doesn't work like that. You are just as capable, but yes, a longer stretch of years, greater setback. SAHM need to know their contribution and value in society, as much as WOHM, and there needs to be a way of accessing refresher training to compensate the loss of work currency, or something of that ilk.

No it doesn't work like that. You are just as capable, but yes, a longer stretch of years, greater setback. SAHM need to know their contribution and value in society, as much as WOHM, and there needs to be a way of accessing refresher training to compensate the loss of work currency, or something of that ilk

You are talking about two very different things here. You seem to be equating the value placed on SAHP and the ability to jump back on the career ladder after taking a significant break.
Not employing a SAHP in the same job as before they took a break from their career has nothing to do with the value placed on SAHP by society.

Yes there absolutely needs to be more support for SAHP returning to work but you need to accept that by choosing to be a SAHP you are choosing to impact your career progression. No judgement but that is just how it is. It has nothing to do with capability....it's relevant and recent experience.
You mentioned sabbaticals in an earlier post. They are different - they are often short (akin to mat leave) and often related to your career.

@CostanzaG
I also find it fascinating that you are referring to class in a discussion about biology. Class is a social construct and infers some sort of pecking order
I'm not using the word "class" in the sense you have assumed i.e. to indicate social or economic status. I use it more broadly to reference the fact that women are a "class" or group of people that share the common attribute of being biologically female. It's important to reference this as the arguments I make are centred around what may be true for women at a population level, however I absolutely accept that the arguments may not hold true for specific individual women. Like any group of people, women are not some homogeneous mass, but this doesn't mean that class analysis is not important to understand and drive change where groups of people are effectively being adversely impacted by current policies or systems.

While I don't disagree that biology is important and shouldn't be ignored I think some people have a tendency to use biology as an excuse. I've seen the concept of 'gate-keeper parenting' up thread and find it fascinating and it seems to make sense. I've seen examples of this and men being either pushed out or being allowed to not engage in family life because caring for children is solely the domain of women
This verges a bit close to whataboutery for me, even if biology is sometimes used as an excuse and some women partake in gate keeper parenting this absolutely does not mean that the current system doesn't need radical reform to make sure that women are not discriminated against for their different biology. You don't need to stop progress on the latter just because the former isn't completely remedied.

Your later points about SAHPs re-entering the workforce are interesting, I'm sure most would agree that a career break could adversely impact someone's career, but what is a justifiable and fair penalty to pay? I mentioned a study earlier in this thread that found that SAHPs see disproportionately penalised for their time out of the workplace when compared to candidates that had taken an identical amount of time away from work, but had spent the time "unemployed". Clearly it's not just the case that employers don't like the length of the career break but they also don't like what SAHPs were doing during this time and discrimating on this basis. As the vast majority of SAHPs are women and there is a strong argument that they are biologically driven to be the primary caregiver to their children then how is this discrimination not a form of sex discrimination?

Beyond this I actually think we need a radical rethink of how we expect people's careers to run. Currently most people are expected to make the bulk of their career progression during women's fertile years when they (and fathers) are most likely to be having children and the demands of family life are at their highest. Is this a sensible and logical way to do things? Also WHY are career breaks so terrible, as Smother suggests you are still the same person with the same core attributes and skills. As someone that once was on a graduate programme I know that it's perfectly possible for a business to fast track learning and skill transfer to enable people from outside the organisation or industry take on relatively senior well paid roles quickly and efficiently. Why isn't this more common for people returning from career breaks that still potentially have 30+ more years left to work? Investment in talent is always a good idea sand currently SAHPs, carers etc are a huge untapped talent pool that is currently just discarded and ignored. It all makes such little sense!

Why on earth would I equate return to work with value of sahm?!! So, no, just so you know, I wasn't, don't.

Noone is choosing to impact their career progression! I am trying to think of a better comparison but quite a stark one is that by wearing a flimsy summer top you are choosing rape, or any other analogy that fits, its the consequence thats wrong and hugely discrimatory, not the initial action.

In fact, there has yet been no mention of the huge personal development a woman can undergo through birth and parenting experience, insights gained and greater depths of cognition, only the absence of anything good and positive, on top of existing capabilities. Its pretty insulting to assume working at whatever level of employment you can't absorb a bit of speed updating, fast track training , etc.after a break.

Women often don't know, I say anecdotally, what they will feel after starting a family. Whether they could never envisage themselves wanting to spend all day at home preferring to continue in the satisfying adult employment world, to discover they will struggle badly to leave their baby! Or vice-versa.

Why on earth would I equate return to work with value of sahm?!! So, no, just so you know, I wasn't, don't
That is how your post reads. Apologies if it was misinterpreted it can be quite difficult to understand your meaning.

Noone is choosing to impact their career progression! I am trying to think of a better comparison but quite a stark one is that by wearing a flimsy summer top you are choosing rape, or any other analogy that fits, its the consequence thats wrong and hugely discrimatory, not the initial action

That is incredibly insulting to rape victims. Quite disgusting actually.
How can you compare someone deciding to become a SAHP to someone being raped? I’m shocked!
If you decide to be a SAHP you are removing yourself from the labour market which will have an impact on your future career. This impact will vary between individuals and will be dependent on how long you are a SAHP, the sector you work in and qualifications and experience.
There are consequences to all our decisions and I guess you weigh up what works for you and your family. Yes some people are choosing this. It’s odd that you can’t see this and incredibly odd that you are comparing it to rape.

In fact, there has yet been no mention of the huge personal development a woman can undergo through birth and parenting experience, insights gained and greater depths of cognition, only the absence of anything good and positive, on top of existing capabilities.

I think it has been mentioned. Nobody is denying this and it is a good point BUT most employers look for relevant and recent experience. This can be where SAHP struggle when re-entering the workforce. Some, not all.

Its pretty insulting to assume working at whatever level of employment you can't absorb a bit of speed updating, fast track training , etc.after a break

As insulting as your rape analogy? Again, will very much vary depending on the sector, the job and the individual.

You seem to think everyone has an agenda against SAHP and see insults in the most benign posts. From what I’ve read most people are supporting women having a choice and being able to make decisions.

Nobody has a vendetta against SAHP.

Its incredibly insulting to sahp choosing to destroy their work prospects!! But its not incredibly insulting to rape victims, because that isn't how it was said, very clearly! I think what's disgusting is the way you are choosing to be so extremely insulting by trying to assert something so very wrong thinking.

If you think nobody has a vendetta against sahps, have you actually even read the thread? I think vendetta is a very odd word to use in this content, but the thread is about the perceived value...oh, I'm nogoingto spell it out to you just because you are ^choosing to interpret my posts with such bias.

choosing

You have an odd bias to make such shocking connections and comments

You have an odd bias to make such shocking connections and comments

You're the one using rape analogies......not me.

You use such emotive language in your posts and so much of what you write makes absolute no sense ( I mean, what do you even mean by 'odd bias' in this context??) that you come across as incredibly judgmental and quite angry.

I've read the full thread and have been astounded by what i've read.

So much aggression and judgement.......a shit load of posts on biology and a whole load of posts on how biology means men can't as good a parent as women and some examples of truly shit dads.
Oh and some odd posts about how women don't have choices which is confusing because they absolutely do... they just don't have equality of choice yet. I suspect some of the views expressed on this thread have a lot to do with it.

Oh and nobody said 'destroying. The word used was 'impact' Two different words with very different meanings. '

To assume I am making that statement as a way of saying that women deserve rape or something. I am completely lost at how you can believe its insulting, odd bias!

Nope, wrong again, loads of wonderful fathers out there.

Read the thread about 'choices' [and their availability] as I'm afraid your posts look like you've just come here to attack me, for every word I've said. Not odd posts about biology stall. Again, your personal bias.

To assume I am making that statement as a way of saying that women deserve rape or something. I am completely lost at how you can believe its insulting, odd bias!

Nope....you have serious comprehension issues and you don't understand what bias means!. It is not applicable is this instance.I just don't think a rape analogy is appropriate or actually illustrated the point you, or I , was trying to make. I have never said that you think women deserve to be raped. However, it is a pretty disgusting and odd choice of analogy to make.
Women choosing to be a SAHP and accepting the impact that might have on their career = women wearing skimpy tops and deserving to get raped.....it doesn't even make sense. If you feel attacked it's because you are using inappropriate rape analogies

Read the thread about 'choices' [and their availability] I have read them. I have agreed that we shouldn't ignore biology BUT we do have a lot more choices than some posters are willing to accept. There have been some excellent example of this form a number of posters and I have to say that my personal experience is that of choice and decisions...decisions which are partly influenced by biology but also hugely informed by my place in society.

Some of the biology posts are a little hard-line for me personally but that's my prerogative.

I'm back on the dating scene dating men in their 40's and 50's. All have been through divorce and one who was going through it.
With the exception of one, who was Sri Lankan and very much felt the 1200 he was paying for the rent of his exes house was not to his ex and was to his kid - bizarrely he had the kid as much as she had, every single man I've spoken to was convinced their ex wives have taken them for a ride. Every one of them. Every single one of them.

The one going through the divorce was having a bitter battle. His ex was convinced he had 2million stashed away. Large portions of his time were spent on 'doing divorce stuff' i.e. hiding the 2 million lol probably.
So yes, out of maybe 100 men I've had dealings with over the years, 1 seemed to be doing the right thing and not feeling bad about it.

On the other hand, a lot of the men, post divorce, had to move back in with their parents. Unless they were on the upper end of the scale of earnings. I suppose that would leave you a bit bitter, if you're essentially homeless after separating. Maybe you've worked hard, she was the SAHP, and she gets custody of the kids and the house. That must be emasculating.
You just have to look at the posts on here. Everyone on here is baying for blood. Take him for every penny he's got etc. Take him to the cleaners! Hit him where it hurts!
Is that where we want to be as a society?

For full disclosure, I'm female and have never been married.

@almutasakieun yes a lot of them move in with the other woman rather than their parents, however.
Most divorcing women aren't seeking to fleece a man but to keep a roof over their children's heads.

*stall ...sometimes a lot my posts get through with completely random and unrelated words in that confuse ...but it is very clear what I was saying. Clearly youre making my posts into somethinthat they aren't. Nice insults...lovely ..

smother a good rule of thumb is don’t use rape analogies. Tbh it has completely undermined any previous arguments you’ve made. I don’t think I have misinterpreted anything. You used rape to make a point and when someone has pointed out how inappropriate that is you’ve got all defensive.

If you wrote it without thinking then apologise or admit that..... surely you can understand that it’s inappropriate and might piss some people off.

SAHP aren’t victims of a terrible crime. They have made choices and decisions using free will. Those decisions have implications and consequences. WOHP also make choices and decisions and have to deal with implications and consequences.
Rape victims are raped. There is no choice or decision and it is against free will. There is no correlation.

Actually Constanz you are the one posting inappropriately.

www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/lifestyle/healthandlife/parents-must-reclaim-the-central-role-if-growing-crisis-among-children-is-to-end-suggests-new-book-894556.html?fbclid=IwAR3Y5Jq_LqiLkKHXUiZaQMb9D5j7Xqjstq1FZCLy8ilUYZdiyaY0DYOr4Bk

Found this article very interesting.

In what way beardy?
How is it appropriate to use rape as an analogy in this context.

That article is interesting and makes some valid points but we mustn't assume that working parents aren't playing a central role in raising their children.

When you look at theories behind anything we are dealing in ideals. But as individuals and families we do what we feel is best in our situation. It would be nice if we could do that free from judgement.

Yes, a lot of men seem to think like this. My OH did, until I sat him down and made him realise the reason I haven't been working for 6 years is because I've been raising OUR children! I like to think if we split now he'd think differently about the material things/money, but I'm not too sure. I think I'll only ever be seen as my partners equal when I start working too. x