So angry at all these threads on useless and selfish men

[Winterday1991]

Off the back of the thread where the H refuses to care for his sick child so the OP can get some much needed rest as he is on annual leave from work 😡. I am seriously fed up of reading threads like this, why are so many men so selfish?

Why is it always women who have to do the lions share of caring, pulling themselves in all direction whilst their male counterparts glide through life uninterrupted? Why is it always women who carry the mental load for family life and the men just show up. Why is always women responsible for maintaining the household?

Even in the 21st century, why do so many men get such a bloody easy ride, whilst often their poor wives/partners are running around like headless chickens keeping on top of everything.

I'm sorry, it's a nonsense concept.
I'm being kind.

@SamanthaCaine

Jesus wept. We can put someone on the moon but can't manage a family trip to Spain (or wherever).

You’re still not really grasping the concept though.

It’s not that any of these tasks in isolation is particularly difficult or burdensome it’s the volume of them and, critically, the (often unspoken) expectation that these are the job of just one person in the partnership.

Youre right that anyone can book a holiday to Spain. But when that person is booking all the holidays and arranging for the boiler repair man to come (and taking time off work to let him in), and booking the parent’s evening slot and paying the lunch money bill and seeing if we are free for dinner on March 24 and booking a sitter and putting another load in the washing machine and hanging it up to try…. On top of a FT job and looking after kids.

When the other person works 8-6, goes to the pub afterwards and then comes home and eats dinner (which they haven’t cooked) and falls asleep in front of the TV.

Mental load is an irrelevant concept in a genuine partnership where everyone has skin in the game. But if one person is doing all of it it’s often a dealbreaker.

When the other person works 8-6, goes to the pub afterwards and then comes home and eats dinner (which they haven’t cooked) and falls asleep in front of the TV.

I think you're describing the Royle family tv show.
The issue is, feminism has moved away from the physical to now debating the subjective thought processes of men and women in relationships.
Oh no, you do chores, ah so what, we think about it more than you?
People laugh at the belief in sky fairies yet believe in the mental load concept.😂

@PrincessConstance

The “Sky fairies” point is bizarre and a bit patronising so I’ll leave that aside.

But it comes back to @Mark19735’s surprisingly useful analogy about “white collar” and “blue collar” work in the home.

In many households both of these sets of labour are being done by one person, unpaid, while the other does very little.

Again it’s not a particularly difficult concept to understand. The tasks in themselves are not a big deal but doing all of them eats massively into that person’s time and headspace.

An analogy might be a team of four administrators in a company. Booking calls into the boss’s diary = not very hard. Booking a lunch for the boss = not very hard. Doing the boss’s dry cleaning = not very hard. Remembering to tell the organisers of a charity event that the boss can’t speak at the event = not very hard.

All good until one of those people is doing all of it while the other three swan off to lunch. If the person who has drawn the short straw of doing all of those boring jobs is left to do them alone he/she will feel pissed off and under-appreciated.

In a marriage where domestic work is all unpaid anyway the resentment is increased.

Economists talk about the concept of comparative advantage. In the context of this thread, those terms taken literally might perhaps be inflammatory, but the idea is that it is possible to maximise mutual benefit, through trade and cooperation, even if there is an imbalance in resources and capabilities between two entities.

If county A has much farmland and many mines, and country B has much farmland but only one mine, then there is an optimum ratio of farming and mining that makes the citizens of (A and B) collectively richer than if the governments of just A and just B individually decided how much to mine or farm within their borders.

That ratio is not 50:50.

The optimum ratio can be mathematically calculated, tested, and empirically proven. It is one of the biggest drivers of the increase in wealth of, amongst other regions, the United States and the European Union.

Applied to the outside (paid) work / household (unpaid) work and physical graft / mental load concepts, this explains why the optimum (wealth maximising) ratio is never going to be 50:50 either. The sex of the stay-at-home-parent and the 'bread winner' has nothing to do with it. All the angst appears to be emanating from people for whom it is axiomatic that mental load be shared 50:50, and yet it can be proven that this will make any household poorer. Very few people want this.

@NocturnalClocks has said she can do it all - earn a six figure salary, raise two children, all alone. That's impressive indeed. But if you plotted a grid with every possible combination of "financial contribution" and "share of mental load" that would come from living as a couple, the expected value of overall welfare is positive regardless of whether that partner earns £20k, £200k or £2m, and regardless of whether they take on 0%, 50% or 100% of the mental load. Yes, someone who earns six figures and does 50% of the mental load is a better partner than someone who earns £20k and does 0% ... but even the latter is better than nothing. And ... in a great many relationships, the tacit agreement is that more mental load is taken on by the stay-at-home partner and greater responsibility for financial contribution is taken by the partner with a career because it makes the family overall better off. But once again, the sex of that partner is not a determinant of that calculation.

I just don't get why posters think an imbalance in mental load is evidence that all men are feckless, lazy and useless. Running off lists about how hard it is to remember the shoes sizes of their children (or book a holiday) to support this proposition is just laughable.

@Mark19735

But the theory of comparative advantage is fine if you're talking about countries.

In that scenario it may make sense for countries to "specialise" in a particular discipline.

In the scenario of a modern marriage/romantic partnership it doesn't work because:

In most couples both partners do at least some paid work. For your model to work it would requires one member of most couples to stop working. That won't work (as I've explained above) for economic and emotional reasons. Most households depend on two sets of income and most women want to do at least some paid work. You can't unilaterally require people who have been working outside the home, paid, for decades to suddenly stop because it doesn't benefit the household finances. There are many reasons why women want to work today and most of them won't stop.

So saying the 50/50 idea isn't optimal is fine in economic theory but in practice getting the population of an advanced western democracy to adopt that practice is a complete non-starter.

Sorry - just overlapped with @Thepeopleversuswork and wanted to clarify - I accept completely that the two examples I used of "high flying career" and "stay-at-home parent" are extremes and that in reality there is continuum for most families, and that often the stay-at-home parent also has paid work. I don't want to diminish that contribution either. (Just like country B had a mine as well as farmland - just not the same number of mines as country A).

You're too fast! I can't keep up ...

But I think we're on the same page (are we?)

No, I totally get it. It's not a particularly difficult concept but the actual work is irrelevant. The trouble is, people are continuously dressing it up as mega taxing to add weight to the argument.

Relationships are hugely variable. Some happily do everything in exchange for other things (money, lifestyle, staying at home, different job patterns etc). Often it's agreed but the problem arises when things are left unspoken, which likely accounts for the vast majority of complaints on MN. Strange when women are supposed to be great communicators.

The work is irrelevant to a large degree, or entirely. The issue is the attitude of one or both parties. If one party has little or no respect/appreciation for the other then that is an issue for the relationship. Incompatibility is the problem, not the work itself.

I'd do anything for my OH, irrespective of the burden or difficulty because I know it's reciprocal and we're both the same. Unfortunately too many people are with partners who have very different ideals of what's acceptable.

It's been said numerous times already but I guess the question is, why are so many women willingly (unwilling) to do what you've described. And how can other women support these people to make positive changes? Without doubt men need to change but women too.

So saying the 50/50 idea isn't optimal is fine in economic theory but in practice getting the population of an advanced western democracy to adopt that practice is a complete non-starter.

Unfortunately everyone has a different idea of what's fair and equitable. You only need to look in the workplace to see the varying arguments caused by initiatives that try to be fair. Fair for whom exactly?

It's impossible to define what's fair in most relationships because partners have different skill sets, salaries and bring different things to the relationship. There are discussions and varying opinions on money splitting/sharing on here all the time. What's fair is rarely what either party actually wants but is a compromise between the two. But even this can breed resentment because of people's fixation on fairness.

@SamanthaCaine

The work is irrelevant to a large degree, or entirely. The issue is the attitude of one or both parties. If one party has little or no respect/appreciation for the other then that is an issue for the relationship. Incompatibility is the problem, not the work itself.

Exactly this. And you can add lack of communication and lack of advance planning/agreement, not setting boundaries, etc., which also often apply. That applies in everything, not just relationships. Just look at the other thread about sharing restaurant bills - easily overcome by agreeing in advance! There was another a couple of weeks ago about someone wanting to bill their "friend" for work they'd done for them, but only wanted to do it after the event, no prior discussions/agreement!

Life is all about managing expectations and doing it in advance. Far too many people just stay quiet and "hope" things will go their way, and then get annoyed/angry when it doesn't!

Yes, someone who earns six figures and does 50% of the mental load is a better partner than someone who earns £20k and does 0% ... but even the latter is better than nothing

@Mark19735 this is where I disagree. I would rather do 100% of both myself than carry another adult who is making a minimal contribution. While in pure economic terms it would add a small increase to my household income to have another adult living here earning £20k, but being lazy and contributing nothing to the tasks involved in running of the household, I would then have the inconvenience of another adult here. Plus the costs of housing and feeding them. Plus I'd likely find it extremely annoying to see them lazing around while I did everything, hence the resentment people are discussing. Not that I'd ever let another adult move into my children's home! But in terms of your example.

Also thank you for saying I am impressive!

Yes definitely. I appreciate that we've all been guilty of not saying anything, because we don't want an awkward moment/situation but what's the worse that can happen?

Set your stall out and go from there. But at least if you do it at the outset you give yourself choices/options. Like with the restaurant thing, if you don't like what you hear, you can drop out. You'd only drop out of the next meal anyway so best not spend any money than do it begrudgingly or getting cross after the event.

All the angst appears to be emanating from people for whom it is axiomatic that mental load be shared 50:50, and yet it can be proven that this will make any household poorer. Very few people want this.

Also, I'm not convinced by this at all. Young women are now more highly qualified than young men and out-earn them collectively until they have children. There is no reason that once people have families one person has to focus on work and one on home to make things efficient.

Currently, due to the structure of our tax system, childcare system, sex stereotypes still prevalent in our society etc the situation changes when people have children. However, these things are choices we have made on a societal level. Other systems exist.

If we look at some Scandinavian countries where the social structures above are different there is a far more equal split in terms of both earned income and household responsibilities between couples with children. And last time I checked the people living in those countries were not poorer than those in the UK. They also generally outstrip us generally on measures such as: lower divorce rates, higher childhood wellbeing scores, higher general happiness of population, higher education scores for chilren, population health, life expentancy, etc.

These things are not inherent and inevitable; it is possible to structure society differently so that households are not financially disadvantaged by both parents maintaining careers and pulling their weight with household tasks and children. It is a cultural and political choice to structure things so as to encourage the continuation of women having lower earnings and doing more of household tasks than men.

I'd also question your assertion based on the economic aspect that nobody wants a more equitable system. I think it's clear from many posts here that a great many people do. And even with our current structure which makes it difficult to achieve, will often make decisions that don't maximise the "economic output" of the household because that is not the only factor in the decision: the wellbeing of the people in the household is also important and this is not determined by income alone. And in the long term, as we all know, it is very dangerous for women to fall into low paid/ no work and focus only on home life. I shudder to think how my children would be living now had I do so.

So it appears to me that what needs changing is the structural system that currently exacerbates these problems. Affordable childcare, tax equalisation, flexible working, proper parental leave for men, enforced and much higher CMS etc all need a radical overhaul so that peverse disincentives and penalisations are not determining/ influencing people's choices. That's not to say people can't decide to structure their household as you've suggested, but that the system should not be structured in such a way as to effectively force some people into that situation when it's not what they want.

These changes are long overdue, as well as obviously people raising their daughters not to tolerate inequality, and their sons not to expect a female house servant and to expect to pull their weight in all aspects of life!

@NocturnalClocks

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "tax equalisation". As far as I know, tax is the same whether you're the wife or the husband. Wasn't it in the 80's when independent taxation was brought in?

To me its pretty simple a single man living on his own does it all, goes to work, comes home cleans, cooks, washes clothes etc. Does all the thinking and planning of his holidays, birthdays and so on.

Then gets married and thinks he doesn't have to do it anymore.

If anything should be happy he no longer have to 100% of it and its now 50% but alas he think he doesn't have to do it at all in some cases.

They are not a child, they are a fully functioning grown up adult.

Lets face it if tomorrow their house burnt down and they were given a choice or free accommodation one that is clean and one that is scruffy and dirty...of course they will pick the clean one 🙄 eveb though they say they are happy to live in a house that isnt clean and who cares about cleaning...thats the hypocrisy that would happen

Then gets married and thinks he doesn't have to do it anymore.

Why would he think that? DH lived on his own before we married. He still did the cooking and laundry (said I wasn't very good at ironing), I did some tidying and hoovering, we were fine, never occurred to me that we should have some sort of agreement. If you filled the bin in the kitchen you changed it and put the full on In the bin outside. It was just straightforward. Good side of him doing the laundry was he always ironed my shirts/blouses/slips etc and used starch which seemed to make them look and feel smarter.

So no reason why a man should expect to sit back, sounds like you just pick the wrong men.

I wonder if these men are sitting wondering where the fun party girl they thought they married went.

All the angst appears to be emanating from people for whom it is axiomatic that mental load be shared 50:50, and yet it can be proven that this will make any household poorer. Very few people want this.

My position is that all housework, childcare and mental load should be split according to the hours that both partners work outside the home. If one partner is working half as many hours as the other, they get to do 2/3 of the household work. It makes no difference how 'easy' or 'hard' each outside job is perceived to be, or how much each person earns doing it.
This way both partners should find that they have equal amounts of leisure and rest time.
The end goal is not maximising household income, it is equalising leisure/rest hours.

@SandraCumin can you provide a link to the studies you talk of? You have been asked since you suggest studies exist but you appear unable to provide any links

All the angst appears to be emanating from people for whom it is axiomatic that mental load be shared 50:50, and yet it can be proven that this will make any household poorer. Very few people want this.

It's not that everyone necessarily wants everything to be split empirically down the middle. It comes down to the point @NocturnalClocks made. It's the perception of it being equitable and sustainable for the family.

If you're a SAHM and your children are at school and your husband is at work, then you are likely to feel better disposed to working through a list of boring but essential admin tasks (calling the electricity provider, ordering a new passport, booking an appointment with a teacher) because you are being fully financially supported and you have time to get it done.

If you're a woman working FT with kids its much more of a hassle but you will get it done because it has to get done.

If you're a woman working FT with kids and your husband messages you repeatedly throughout the day saying "have you called the solicitor/gas people/school?" and "why didn't the child have matching shoes on today?", or "What time are we meeting Bob and Sue on Wednesday?" you will get to a point where you think "I have a job too... why the fuck is all of this my problem?"

Welcome to mumsnet, where feminist hypocrisy thrives and is the man hating capital of the Internet. Imagine if there was a dad's net...

Imagine if you looked at any number of male centred forums and the misogyny found in them, even ones aimed at dads.

Take Reddit - biggest lesbian sub is a porn sub, actuallesbians has been infiltrated by men and actual lesbians are banned if they’re not happy about it, other women only subs are banned unless they become male inclusive. Incel subs are rife, porn subs disgustingly common.
One sub that actually focuses on teaching women the skills to spot red flags and learn how to choose a male partner well are constantly under attack and has alternative locations ready because the sub can be suspended or blocked at a moments notice.

Mumsnet is a place where women can come and be unapologetically themselves, say it how it is. In many women’s experiences men are useless - there’s nothing hypocritical about this, and a couple of posters disagreeing doesn’t change the fact that in most households it is the woman who does the majority of the work, and that this can be incredibly divisive and causes couples to split up.

Also this assumption that “well I can do xyz easily therefore anyone who can’t is lazy” is such a shitty attitude. We all have different skill sets, the mental load and keeping on top of family necessities is very challenging for some, whilst work is a walk in the park.

It's the perception of it being equitable and sustainable for the family.

Yes, this.
My situation was being SAHM to disabled children (ex had been great until after dc were born), where every day including the weekend was like living in a war zone, ex got to spend his days with rational adults who didn’t need constant supervision and who never punched or spat at him. He would then swan in at 6pm and expect our home to be a haven of peace and tranquility, because he worked and I got to stay at home. He felt he had a bum deal, I felt that I had. He would kindly point out that housework hadn’t been done, but apart from cooking for us would do nothing, because he worked.

Amongst families including disabled children this scenario seems very common, and women are very often more trapped and stuck with far more on their plate because you can’t just up your work hours, or outsource parts of childcare or cleaning etc. It’s difficult to separate.

I see most other women living this to some degree or other and most just put up with it, because it’s just what women do.
When I split with my ex so many friends who had apparently happy marriages came and told me how jealous they were that I’d bitten the bullet. So many women are in mediocre marriages, not because they’ve chosen badly, but because having children has upset the balance and women are having to pick ip the slack.

I agree wholeheartedly with those posters who say to keep men out of things. It’s just not worth it.

Sure. What I mean is that single parents (over 90% of them women) are discriminated against throughout the tax system. Much of this applies to single people with no children, too, but it has a far bigger impact on single parents and is one of the main driving factors of our child poverty levels and children from single parent households (and the almost-all women running those households being disadvantaged deliberately by Government policy. Single parent households:

get a 25% discount on Council tax, not 50%;

can earn only half as much income as a two parent houshold can before they are subject to income tax;

can earn only half as much income as a two parent household can before they are subject to higher rate tax;

can earn only half as much income as a two parent household can before they lose child benefit;

can earn only half as much income as a two parent household can before they pay additional rate tax;

can earn only half as much income as a two parent household can before they lose the entitlement to the 15 hours extra funding at nursery for children over 3; and

can earn only half as much income as a two parent houshold can before they lose their eligibility for "tax free childcare".

While single these parents are doing the work of two parents: providing financially and childcare. They have 24 hours per day to split between these tasks whereas a couple has 48 hours per day to do these things and split between them as they see fit. A single parent will likely have higher costs also for this reason, needing additional childcare/ cleaners or whatever because they only have 24 hours. And yet they are taxed more heavily on the same household income.

A couple who decides to not work at all would pay the level of tax a single parent pays on their household income. But they would have no childcare costs at all. So much better off, obviously. A couple where both parents work can share childcare and work between them so have far more free time and lower childcare costs than the single parent AND also pay far less in tax.

This is very deliverate penalisation of single parents through these tax systems which is easily fixed.

Many countries (France, Denmark etc) levy taxes on a households basis for this reason.

Sorry I meant a couple where one person decides not to work at all.

Actually no, married couples also get an extra tax break with transferring part of their partner's personal allowance as well if one of them decides not to work/ work very little. So can still pay less tax on the same household income than the single parent is paying. Even thougj they have 48 hours per day to earn money/ care for children instead of 24.

So yes, factually, it is undeniable that at every level through the tax system it is designed to disadvantage single parent households, and does so very effectively.