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.

@Stillcountingbeans

You mis-diagnose the cause of why this is no longer the case in most Western countries - it was not the fault of feminism but of rampant capitalism, exacerbated by energy crises.
In the sixties or early seventies, a blue-collar worker (at least a unionised worker in the USA) could afford to pay for the house, have a full-time SAHP, a couple of children, run a car, and afford a modest two-week holiday each year.
(In the UK they may not have afforded the car, but the landscape is more compact and buses were the norm.)
Now a single childless person cannot afford all this. A childless couple can barely afford this.

This is all true and there are some economic arguments for dividing tasks along gender lines but it hugely misses the point. A household probably does run more smoothly along "breadwinner and "SAHP" lines. But this misses the fact that many women rightly don't want to be entirely financially dependent on their husband or male partner.

That's not radical feminism, either, it's just sensible self-protection. I honestly think you would have to be absolutely mad (male or female) to completely surrender financial autonomy to another person. However enmeshed you are with them and however many contractual rules are in place to protect you.

Call this feminism if you want or call it pragmatism but no sensible person would agree to hand over all that control and that isn't about to happen.

Mothers who work do so for a variety of reasons but for most of them it's partly financial self-protection. The idea that women should not expect to be given minimal support by their partners to achieve this because it doesn't make economic sense for the household is depressing. What's good for the household isn't always ultimately good for the woman and her children and women need optionality. Any decent man should understand this.

But the real accelerator in the progression of income comes from the geometric expansion of work-related mental load, and the premium that companies are prepared to pay to those who can hack it. The world where two parents each work part-time is fine if both are blue-collar and basically do piecework. It's effectively a job-share.

But how many families with blue-collar workers depend on overtime? That only kicks in after the 40th hour, or at weekends, or nights. One partner working 60hrs will bring in more money that two doing 30hrs.
And how do you accommodate work where the availability/on-call requirements are indivisible?
And how do you sub-divide accountability in regulated industries where insurance and other requirements insist on a single named duty holder?
And how do you deal with highly competitive scenarios that are winner-takes-it-all, like sales? Someone throttling back and putting in 50% into those roles won't earn 50% of the commissions, they'll earn zero. And so will their partner.

I wish it could be done - I really do. And there probably are some professions where it could be done more easily. But I can't envisage a world in which everyone, en-masse, worked less, produced less and shared the fun work as well as the drudge work evenly and equitably. Because even if that world could be willed into existence, there'd be incentives for those who 'cheat' by choosing to be the tradwife (or house husband), enabling their partner to succeed in their career, eventually earning more and then outbidding everyone else for the nicer houses. And people would notice, and they'd be unhappy. And the smart ones would modify their behaviour. And before long, we'd be right back to where we started.

@Stillcountingbeans

have a parent who can cook proper meals, who has time to listen to them talk, etc.

You'd have to be never there for that to be an issue.

It's obviously easy enough to do that and work

especially when both parents take an equal role

Indeed.

Yes some types of job are not suitable for part-time hours, or for work-life balance, or for taking a role in raising a family.

I would suggest to all women that they think twice about marrying a man with such a job, unless they are happy to be a SAHP, or at least the default parent.

Still waiting for @Mark19735 to answer how children who look after themselves need a sahp to prevent neglect

Funny how none of these advocates of a "traditional set-up" are bleating about how the children suffer from their (almost always) fathers not being around to do this.

Yet in a divorce situation it's so important that children have time with both parents. I agree it is. But then how is it not important while that father is still married?

And also that men who want a family think twice about taking such jobs, surely? Otherwise inherently they are expecting the mother to do their parenting for them.

Some parents are almost never there.
I worked in an outstanding secondary school in a good area. The headteacher explained to me that they still had to deal with neglected and emotionally damaged children - the ones whose parent's worked and slept and did little else, who gave the child £100 on a Monday morning and effectively said 'see you next weekend'.

The ideal is for both parents to take an equal role, and between them work a sensible amount of hours.

You need to be careful with classifications and which taxon applies here. Measures of neglect can include many things. Not picking them up after school, for example. Yes, some stay-at-home-parents drink themselves into a stupor all day and never bother, but generally the sober ones manage to get to the pick up on time. The ones racing against rush hour traffic also manage pretty well, but are are more likely to miss the cut-off. If that happens twice in a year, it is visible in the stats. Doesn't mean the kids will fail their GCSEs. It's just too difficult to capture every variable precisely and requires real nuance in interpretation. More nuance than some posters on this thread are evidently capable of.

And also that men who want a family think twice about taking such jobs, surely? Otherwise inherently they are expecting the mother to do their parenting for them.

This!!!

@DanseAvecLesLoup that's encouraging and also interesting about the foreign/challenging placements. I interviewed a really impressive young female civil engineer last year. She'd done those and gained a lot. She'd developed a real passion for bridges. She went to a girls' school and specifically referenced that a number of times in the interview. There's definitely something to unpick here with values, beliefs and barriers to advancement (even if they are within people's heads).

Regarding the other poster, I am aware of the issues in Engineering (I am married to an Engineering lecturer). It was a general point I was trying to make rather than a specific one about Engineering but it does seem as a profession that it's not high profile in the UK, which is a shame given the opportunities.

@Mark19735

Oh dear

😂

I completely agree
My example was not to support a man being the sole earner, it was to show how much worse off families are now than back then, and how capitalism has us all working longer and longer hours to afford basic housing.

More nuance than some posters on this thread are evidently capable of.

So much irony.

And the gall, after the "thousands of generations..." nonsense.

Nobody with any rationality will be taking your comments seriously at this point.

Neither is delegating the raising/day-to-day care to childminders/care.

So now, despite not being a parent, bt stating that you would be much better at parenting because you're conscientious and more organised and think you have a higher IQ (your words), you are now also attacking parents who use childcare?

Yes!!

@Stillcountingbeans

Thats like using Romanian orphans as an argument against sleep training.

Some parents are neglectful.

Working or not has little bearing on that

? what have Romanian orphans got to do with sleep training? I don't understand.

You’re only getting one side of the story here. Quite frankly I’m tired of people tarring all men with the same brush while acting as if women are somehow better or forever victims. Yes some men are twats, so are some women. Men and women have different roles and lots of men work bloody hard for their family and to bring home the wage to support their family. Relationships are hard work, I’m not a fan of placing all the blame on one side unless there is abuse from either side.

I think the poster is basing her opinion on mumsnet reading only, not really a good basis for a balanced view of the world.

@Stillcountingbeans

When anti St /crunchy mum types start banging on about sleep training causing brain damage, if you ask what research they always bring up cortisol. And that research is based on the severe neglect found in Romanian orphanage. Bog all to do with St.

A few dick head parents isn't research or even worth discussing

It's probably why some women regret having kids.

Have you read the full thread?

Ok. I wasn't suggesting this was research, just anecdata from what a headteacher told me.
I have no trouble believing that if both parents work very long hours, and think that the teen doesn't need childcare any more so they fend for themselves, then this could be damaging to the child.
I have no idea how common this scenario is.