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!?

You talk about a lack of comprehension... I think you are wilfully misunderstanding her. She did not in fact make a rape analogy. She made an analogy to the type of unreasonable and frankly horrific justifications often used in rape cases (less and less now thank god). Her analogy was - it is unreasonable and wrong to use a woman's clothing as a justification for rape. We have strong intuitions concerning this. It is the use of inappropriate 'evidence' to justify something wrong, and the fact that this justification is therfore weak and so too the conclusion of the argument. This is what the analogy works on. Not that sahp are as wronged as rape victims, or we should sympathises with them in the same way or anything else like that. I think there are stronger analogies she could have used. I think she was looking for a reductio ad absurdem, and I'm not sure it worked. But I certainly don't think she used a rape analogy to show that criticising sahp is akin to criticising rape victims. And I think you know this.

And I completely agree w you on judgment side of things. But in fact there's judgment coming from all angles on this thread. And sometines, to defend yourself, you find yourself on the offensive.

Either way that analogy did not work. And it it is bad taste to use rape as an example. SAHP are not being blamed for anything. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that by removing yourself from the labour market, for whatever reason, you are going to potentially impact your future career.
Someone has posted some research that SAHP are discriminated against when returning to work after a long break compared to just being simply unemployed, but that needs further investigation as I’m not sure it translates to a uk labour market. If it true then that is obviously wrong.
Employers look for relevant and recent experience and if you choose to be a SAHP then you need to accept that you may be found lacking in that respect when returning to the labour market.
That isn’t saying it’s wrong to be a SAHP, that applies to anyone taking a significant break from working. It also doesn’t mean SAHP can’t re-enter the workforce but it might mean entering at a lower level to begin with.

This isn’t a judgement aimed at SAHP and in no way am I saying that is a bad decision ...it’s just simple facts. For some people this is of no consequence but for others it matters and that is fine! It is okay to still be career focussed once you become a parent . It doesn’t make you a bad parents or a worse parent compared to a SAHP.

SAHP often feel like they are being viewed as lazy and of less value to society than those who work.
WOHP often feel like they are being told they are poor parents and selfish
When the reality is we are all just doing our best for ourselves and our families. Instead of judgement we should be supporting each other and celebrating the fact we have so many more choices than previous generations.

I agree.... We can't argue with employers who are simply incentivised to get most bang for their buck from their employees. But the whole point is.... The role of political institutions is to intervene when a free market damages society. Politics is then supposed to look to how to incentivised the market to 'correct'. There is no such thing as a perfectly free market. All markets have laws governing private property and preventing monopolies. Almost all markets have much more intervention than this. The question then becomes, should politics incentivise different choices on the part of individuals (prolonged, shared parental leave) and employers (supporting bf, supporting reintegration of sahp). As to rape. Completely disagree. Rape, genocide, torture, etc... These are things that rightfully prick our emotions and our ideas on what is just and unjust. I am all for debates about these issues. If soneone can convince me - yes - but you think like this if it is a case of torture, this is a good analogy, you should think like this here, then I think it is justifiable. I am all for refining my own beliefs about what I think is right and wrong. I agree though, in this case there are better analogies to use. But it wasn't 'inappropriate' in a sort of 'how dare you liken this to rape'. She wasn't doing that.

I will use rape analogies, and if you choose to deliberately misinterpret then that's your responsibility.

I am not explaining again to the hard of thinking, you have no idea what you are talking about.

You also completely chose to ignore my previous acknowledge in explaining why I used it, but it was the principle that applied, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying its like wearing a revealing top is asking for rape that doesn't saying...but that's clear anyway.

smother I have no desire to get into an arguement with you. Your posts are consistently difficult to interpret and I’m sorry but I am offended by you using rape as a (very poor) analogy no matter what point you were trying to make.

You come across as very angry and seem to want to interpret posts ( mine especially) as an attack on SAHP. Well you aren’t getting that from me.

I have read all of your posts on this thread and I can see that we have fundamentally different views and approaches to life. And that’s fine...neither one is better than the other. At least let’s agree on that.

@CostanzaG
Instead of judgement we should be supporting each other and celebrating the fact we have so many more choices than previous generations
I really dislike this line of argument that because some progress has been made we should all just "celebrate" and be grateful for this rather than question the extent of the progress and the direction of future progress. Until real and meaningful equality is achieved then I will not be focusing my energy on celebrating!

You talk a lot about the realities of people taking breaks from their careers and why this inevitably must lead to a SAHP being penalised when they return to work. The thing that you don't reference is that this is only an inevitably because nobody has intervened to change this and that nothing is set in stone. Nobody is suggesting that people (especially SAHPs) aren't currently penalised for taking time out of the workforce, the issue up for debate is whether the penalty currently applied is proportionate or if some level of intervention is needed.

Your argument seems to centre on employer preferences and the fact that they favour candidates with recent experience, I absolutely wouldn't dispute this. However it's easy to also see why employers left to their own devices would have a preference for employees who required no time off for medical appointments, needed no workplace adaptions and didn't have career breaks to have babies etc. Obviously the state has stepped in on all of these issues to make sure that key groups are protected from discrimination through legislation. IF you accept that women are biologically predisposed to be the primary carers for their children and that this will mean they will be most likely to be SAHPs, work PT or have a period of time on the "mummy track" then you could argue that state has a responsibility to make sure that women are not penalised for this as that would be discriminating against women based on their biology. We may live in a capitalist society but this does not mean that we have to allow market forces to have free reign and allow employers to consign whole groups of people to the scrapheap because they don't represent the easiest short term option.

I think the thing that annoys me most about your perspective is that you appear to be pretty satisfied that the current situation is fair and justifiable. When I read the following:
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
I wonder how you define "free will" when you previously said that you accept that biology is real and will have an influence on people's choices. Most of all though I wonder why you think SAHPs should just accept their fate and not fight for change? The whole free choice and consequences argument has been used to oppress women since the dawn of time. Choose to have sex out of wedlock then you must accept that you can't keep any illegitimate children conceived. Choose to have a child once married then you must give up your career. Luckily most people now recognise that women as a class have a biological urge to have sex and to have children and punishing them for this is ridiculously unfair so thankfully these "consequences" have largely been consigned to history, I would like similar to happen for women who spend a few years focusing on raising their children

I really dislike this line of argument that because some progress has been made we should all just "celebrate" and be grateful for this rather than question the extent of the progress and the direction of future progress. Until real and meaningful equality is achieved then I will not be focusing my energy on celebrating!

Okay celebrate maybe the wrong adjective BUT although there is still progress to be made women are afforded more choice. Not equal (yet) but choice. However, we still seem to be focusing on judging other women for these choices rather than supporting them.

Your argument seems to centre on employer preferences and the fact that they favour candidates with recent experience
I’m an employer who needs to recruit people with recent and relevant experience. People with 5 years out of the sector ( not just the workforce) struggle to get employed because of this.

Obviously the state has stepped in on all of these issues to make sure that key groups are protected from discrimination through legislation

Pregnancy and maternity are covered in the 2010 equality act.

IF you accept that women are biologically predisposed to be the primary carers for their children and that this will mean they will be most likely to be SAHPs, work PT or have a period of time on the "mummy track

I don’t accept that....not as dogmatically as you do.

I think the thing that annoys me most about your perspective is that you appear to be pretty satisfied that the current situation is fair and justifiable

Nope. You’ve jumped to conclusions here. Women are still massively disadvantaged.

I wonder how you define "free will" when you previously said that you accept that biology is real and will have an influence on people's choice
I don’t think biology has a huge impact on choice. Society play a much bigger part.
If you choose to have children then you know that as a women you have to be the one that carry’s the baby, gives birth and maybe breastfeed ( if you want) but after that you decide what you want your fate to look like. Dad’s are capable of everything except breastfeeding, you can work and breastfeed , there is shared parental leave, etc, etc, etc.....
The choices women have are by no means equal but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a choice. That’s my view anyway and im sure you disagree but that’s how my life and the life of my friends has worked.

The whole free choice and consequences argument has been used to oppress women since the dawn of time
But that doesn’t mean we live consequence free. The consequences you list are laden with judgement. Remove judgement and we still have to love with the consequences of all our actions - positive and negative.

You completely took on an argument against me constanza I hadn't even been aware of you until your reactive posts to everything I said, so its hardly 'I dont want to get into an argument with you ....talk about twisting everything. Wtf!

Isn’t this what mumsnet is all about? Discussion? I wasn’t aware of some strange code where I was supposed to introduce myself before entering into a discussion.
I found your rape analogy in poor taste but that’s done with.

I have completely opposing views to you so that might be why you feel singled out....you’re also one of only a couple of people still engaged in this thread so I guess when the discussion is only between a couple of people I can seem like that.

I don’t agree with you and you don’t agree with me but I’m not looking to argue.

Discussion yes. I don't care what you think about my rape analogy, its so over. Talk about twisting everything.

smother I know you don’t care. It is over.
I’ve not twisted anything. You obviously don’t recognise an olive branch when you see one.

No of course I would be wrong about that too. Poor you I don't even recognise an olive branch you are being so kind, aren't I just the nasty one heh?

You’re starting to come across that way smother
I’m really not spoiling for a fight despite what you believe.
There were some very interesting points on this thread and although I don’t agree with many of them it’s interesting to see alternative points of view. Unfortunately it now just seems like we’re going round in circles.

Have a nice day.

Step away from the keyboard people.....

I’ve returned and the debate rages on!

Beardy - I totally agree with your points and you put it far more eloquently than I could have.

Costanza - I think you might have overdone It with your reaction the “rape analogy,” to be honest. It’s clear what Smother was trying to say and no, of course she wasn’t directly comparing SAHMs to rape victims fgs! Its a little like cheap point-scoring to jump on the issue and use it to try and gain some moral high-ground. It doesn’t read well.

If the only point you wish to make is that SAHMs are disadvantaged in re-entering the workplace - then, er, yes. Nobody has disputed this across the entire thread.

I do find your insistence to repeat the pitfalls for SAHMs re- work prospects to be a little worrying if you’re a recruiter. I hope you wouldn’t penalise a SAHM who has taken a 5 year career break, over someone who’s been travelling, unemployed or on sick leave for the sMe period , simply because you have some kind of axe to grind here, or possibly insecurity about other women’s choices / lifestyles?

do find your insistence to repeat the pitfalls for SAHMs re- work prospects to be a little worrying if you’re a recruiter. I hope you wouldn’t penalise a SAHM who has taken a 5 year career break, over someone who’s been travelling, unemployed or on sick leave for the sMe period , simply because you have some kind of axe to grind here, or possibly insecurity about other women’s choices / lifestyles?

Did is say I would? When recruiting staff I’m very fair and equitable but I would employ someone who has up to date knowledge and relevant and recent experience. That is not discriminating against SAHP or anyone else who has been out of the labour market for a significant period of time. There should be more support for women returning to work ....I’m a member of an organisation who works to ensure women are not unfairly penalised when pregnant and that parents are supported in coming back to work. I’m working with a careers adviser to ensure that women are given up to date and correct advice.
However, if you choose to remove yourself form the labour market for a significant period of time you need to accept that your career may be affected......not forever and maybe not at all but it should be factored into any decision you make.

I’m not insecure about my choices or lifestyle but maybe it’s because I feel it truly was a choice unlike some posters. The insecurity isn’t coming from me.

And the reason I’ve chosen to focus on the impact on career development is because I’ve seen how posters who argue against the ‘biology’ debate are treated.

I’m happy to discuss that but I think the remaining posters on this thread wouldn’t like my views so I’ve mainly kept them to myself.

I’ve mentioned previously that we should be a supportive community which doesn’t judge other people’s choices but what I’ve read is a lot of judgement and anger.

(My comments on the rape analogy may seem OTT but the subject of rape can be very triggering for some people)

Fair enough Costanza. I guess my experience of the SAHMs I know is that all this is largely irrelevant they don’t expect for one minute to waltz back into work and pick up where they left off. Of course they don’t. They’re a lot more realistic than that! If you’re planning on being a SAHM for two or several children - ie. maybe 10 years or more - it’s a lifestyle choice and you’re thinking more long-term - eg. possibly retraining in years to come and maybe a change of direction altogether. For instance, SAHMs I know have retained as all kinds of therapists, teachers or psychologists in later life. Many want to work for themselves or look for something flexible. It’s wuite rare to suddenly get the urge to head back into the corporate sphere after a long gap to raise DC - that’s if you were ever in that sphere in the first place! I dint know any long/term SAHMs who would be interested in doing that tbh. More often, they see the gap as an opportunity for reassessment and change if priorities and / or direction.

We're all coming from our own individual perspectives and drawing upon our own experiences. My experiences are very different. Hardly anyone I know works in a 'corporate' job. I'm more likely to come across those working in education, universities, NHS which are considered to be incredibly flexible...... therefore perfect for returning SAHPs. The problem is , particularly in my sector, is that often what we do is changing constantly and reactive to government policy. This requires up to date knowledge. Also, flexibility works both ways.
Whenever we advertise a job we are inundated with applications from those looking to return to work but unfortunately they often don't get offered the job because of lack of relevant and recent knowledge/experience and our (very) flexible terms don't suit. They're often very surprised ..... Advice and guidance for this group would be so beneficial.

I agree with the realistic expectations of sahp being out of the workplace.
Although, I've never really met anyone who works for a corporate, in that environment.
The sahp's I know returning to work after long term sahp, not just a few years, are totally realistic.
I'm currently looking for work, waiting to hear about a specific job I want, but had plenty interviews and have accepted 4 offers which I'll decline if this other comes up.
I've been sahp/ housewife for 30 years, jobs are easy to find, it's something that wohp's tell themselves about sahp's but it's not true

I don't think it's something WOHPs tell themselves at all. I think they're more of the opinion that you can do it.....

It all about realistic expectations. There are jobs out there and there are flexible jobs but the flexibility often has to work both ways.

Constanza
I do read lots of posts on here and listen to people around me, and it's generally accepted that sahp's will find it practically impossible to get work.
So many people, mostly working women have told me this.
I agree with you they have a point about some not being realistic.
I'm very happy with entry level jobs (as long as it's a nice environment and I enjoy the job). I've had four offers, and been out of work for 30 years.
I never expect to be a hr tax payer again or have much responsibility, I'm glad to see younger, ambitious, people giving their pound of flesh in return for higher salaries.
I see a lot of women my age entering the workplace after many years out, usually pt to fit in with childcare offered to their children.

Romany you've accepted four offers of employment which you don't intend to honour? That's disgusting.