What do men even do?

[dohdohdoh]

Since having kids I look at men and think what do you even do?!

What hurdles do they have in their life?

I have a great partner and we try to make things 50:50 but I hate that:

• Despite being in similar lines of work he earns more than me
• I have had to take maternity leave because financially he earns more than me and it "makes sense" (so hasn't had to look after 2 under 3 for the last year, while he's at work)
• That raising my children is literally worth no money in return (I don't get anything for the last 12 weeks of my 1 year of mat leave - yes I'm "lucky" to get something for the first 9 months)

And basically all the other minor and major injustices of being a woman!

I just can't help but think if once women give birth and society deemed men should then look after a baby for the next 12 months, they'd instantly demand full pay for the whole period and everyone would think, yes that's reasonable. But as women we should just be grateful for any morsels we can get.

Sorry this is just a rant I guess but I can't believe its the 21st century and we are still screwed over. And now when I look at men I just think what do you even do? How much do you pull your weight at home? Who have you trampled on to get to where you are professionally? I judge them, I judge them harshly.

Thanks, NettleTea.

@lifeissweet you despair of what? Of someone having different views to yours?

All I've read so far on this thread is the rights/needs of the woman/mother (or even those of the man/father). What about the needs of the baby or child in question?

This may be an unpopular view but I'm going to say it anyway - I wouldn't feel comfortable after carrying and giving birth to a baby, to give that baby to their other parent to be the sole or main carer. And that's leaving aside any financial considerations. It just feels wrong to me. And that's even with an easy birth. What about women who have had c-sections or difficult births? Or women who choose to breastfeed? Women's bodies need time to heal after being pregnant which can take up to a year. It doesn't sound like a good idea to go back to a full time job 6 or 8 weeks after giving birth. So there is just one example of where there can't ever be true equality.

Secondly - you refer to women being 'disadvantaged'. Yes maybe disadvantaged financially but why is raising children seen as less important than doing a paid job?

We need to change out attitudes.

you refer to women being 'disadvantaged'. Yes maybe disadvantaged financially but why is raising children seen as less important than doing a paid job?
We need to change out attitudes.

I think this is precisely what lifeissweet is saying.

@bendmeoverbackwards completely agree Society needs to change views around Stay at home parents.

There is enough money in this country for all mothers to be paid fully for maternity leave. Why do we as society think that paying nurseries extortionate fees to look after littles one better so the woman can work instead of the mothers being at home?

I earn a lot more than my partner but chose to take my full mat leave because I want to. DH does half of the household stuff, probably a bit more to counter the extra baby bits he can't do (ebf). Not everything in your OP is the way it has to be.

Outside of my own situation, I do often look at men and think "what is the point of you", so YANBU.

Secondly - you refer to women being 'disadvantaged'. Yes maybe disadvantaged financially but why is raising children seen as less important than doing a paid job?
I suppose one has a much higher risk of living out your later years in grinding poverty. Seems a disadvantage to me, even if it’s just ‘financial’

I suppose one has a much higher risk of living out your later years in grinding poverty

What do you mean by this @timeisnotaline?

Agree. Agree. Agree.

Yes maybe disadvantaged financially but why is raising children seen as less important than doing a paid job?
We need to change out attitudes.

I think the financial inequality reinforces the perceived inequality. The two are linked: if society finally valued it equally it would pay both types of work equally, and if it paid both equally it would change the perception.

@bendmeoverbackwards I mean the
Impact of financial disadvantage. Sod this ‘children are their own reward so we should take the crap they are given approach’. There are too many women left broke in old age due to dropping out of the workforce and the societal cost is significant.

Raising children is not less important but it is significantly less valued and that is wrong. Of course there should be decent mat pay. Of course being parents should be supported. I’m so grateful to both being born in the time I was and being privileged enough to have jobs that pay mat leave and support you in taking them. I’m so excited about dh having his first paternity leave (if this baby works out).

Well, until we live in a socialist society, raising kids and not working will always put the person who’s doing it (usually a woman) at a disadvantage. Capitalism is inherently bad for women but people seem to want to keep voting for it.

Unless you are in a very well paid job, once you have factored in childcare costs, many women are left with very little money in their pocket.

Dropping out of the workforce is not always a bad thing. Some women go into new careers or retrain later on.

Raising children is not less important but it is significantly less valued and that is wrong

Yes it is. And threads such as these don't help. If women are complaining about lack of equality and lack of earning power, it stands to reason that work is seen as more important than child rearing.

What do even men do?

Live for their next shag, blowjob, night down the boozer with de lads, pizza, beer, bbq, sport.

I think that's it.

Oh and earn the money and fertilise the eggs.

What an awful post @Saucy99 Even tongue in cheek. Women would be furious if such a comment was said about them (by men). And quite rightly. So why is it ok to say this about men?

Raising children is not less important but it is significantly less valued and that is wrong

This is true, morally speaking.

I see this argument made all the time on here and I have some sympathy with it but the problem with talking about placing more value on raising children is that when the rubber meets the road it always comes back to policies which basically entrench the fact that this is a woman's job.

If "valuing" people choosing to stay at home with their kids was genuinely a unisex policy initiative with specific incentives for men, I might feel more positive about it. But in practice there is currently no economic mechanism that exists to place value on someone remaining at home to look after their kids which does not effectively mean this falling to the woman.

No man who is trained and equipped for a high paid job will voluntarily give this up to remain at home with his kids. Even if there was government subsidy to do so and his wife was better paid. It just doesn't happen under normal circumstances.

So when you start talking about incentivising remaining at home you are basically talking about initiatives be they workplace changes or tax breaks or whatever which incentive women to stay at home.

And the economic impact of that for women who do want to or have to work is not desirable.

Statutory maternity pay is truly shockingly low.

The default offering for paternity leave is shocking.

Combined, these two things mean women who have children are at a significant disadvantage in terms of career potential than are men with children. Increase statutory parental pay and maternal and paternal leave the same length. Oh, and while we're at it, offer monetary support for childcare from one year of age to facilitate the return to work.

The shared parental leave scheme is good in spirit but unfortunately inadequate on practice.

As for the actual question in the topic, well, obviously it depends on the man. The broken maternity system is what deserves scorn, not men as individuals.

My husband would love to have been able to take a year out with DD, but we can't afford it. We can't afford for me to do it either - I'll be going back after nine months.

This is where decent paternity leave comes in- we will be better off for my dh taking it, as I’ll be on unpaid mat leave by then so if he can take over, fully paid, and I go back to work it’s a win (I was always going to go back to work).

Or maybe more career breaks are the answer. Some companies offer a 5 year break and you can come back into your role after this time. But of course that is dependent on people being able to afford to take a break.

@CoalCraft what are you doing for childcare?

If you don't want to risk pausing your career, don't have kids.
Do we say that to men? No. Why not?

Because they can't have kids? Perhaps we should be ranting at the universe for only allowing women to become pregnant.

If your part of a couple choosing to have a family then you need to agree how you're going to look after it/them first. I think you should be able to allocate maternity leave etc so the man can use it if that's the way you want to work. Have the baby return to work asap and OH can be main carer bottle feeding if thats the way you want to work it. It's up to you as a couple to sort it, no reason he can't be a stay at home dad if that's best for you. The govt won't come and force him back to work. Let him be a sahd and you go on with your career.

I’ve just had this argument with DH. He paid off his student loan 3 years ago, I’ve just found out I still owe over £12k. Started repayments at the same time 12 years ago, similar amounts owed etc. We both decided to have children, but all those years of looking after children/working part time have impacted on my student loan (and ability to pay it back, resulting in obscene charges for interest)

It’s not as simple as to say well don’t have kids. Also yes I could have gone back to work early, I could have worked full time, but then who covers the cost of childcare? I do feel very much that I have enabled his career and finances at the detriment of mine. Not saying I’d change it for the world, nor is there any I’ll feeling towards him, but I definitely think there is an inequality.

It’s not as simple as to say well don’t have kids.

Of course its not. If the future of the human species depends on reproduction its just not good enough to say that the sex which produces the offspring is determined to be structurally disadvantaged for the lifetime of the species because the other sex won't accept any compromise.

What's the point of any advance in society if you sit back and passively accept this biological determinism?

@TonkinLenkicks did you not pool your money, resources and debts when you got married? My dh and I have very different earnings but it's not thought of as 'his' money or 'my' money; it's 'our' money. That's what a partnership is about surely?

[quote bendmeoverbackwards]@TonkinLenkicks did you not pool your money, resources and debts when you got married? My dh and I have very different earnings but it's not thought of as 'his' money or 'my' money; it's 'our' money. That's what a partnership is about surely?[/quote]
That's all great if you're not working and he is and you need some support when you're at home with children.

But if you are making your own money and you're with someone who isn't making much and also not doing as much as he should in the home, somehow "our money" sounds much less attractive.