Pay equality will be hard to achieve while we continue to prioritise lifestyle

[CaramacFiend]

Had an interesting discussion with a colleague last night whilst out for drinks and she made some points I've never really considered.

She pointed out that the woman often takes on the carer role as 'it made more sense due to his salary being higher'. This is no doubt true because even without the pay bias towards men there's also the fact that the husband is often a few years older and hence further along in his career. Also that men are more likely to ask for pay rises and choose high paying jobs - even more so in working class demographics where men often learn trades and women become carers etc.

So of course it makes financial sense for a family to do this. But what if the man took some of the hit and the woman continued building her career? In the long run this might even be better as the man might bounce back more easily (women may still continue to face prejudice from some for the perceived risk of them becoming pregant again).

Of course there's the issue of men not being able to give birth but the fact that only 1% women utilise shared parental leave does suggest that there's plenty of room for men to be more involved. My colleague believes that a lot of us want to have our cake and eat it.

Another colleague chipped in to say that a lot of families can't afford to take the hit on the main salary, but the original colleague said "well, that's a lifestyle choice". She said that she deliberately waited a couple of years until her salary/experience had reached the level where she wasn't reliant on her husband's salary. Obv not an option for everyone but it was an interesting point. She said that it can be a mistake to build your life on the foundation of a rich partner.

She said that she understands why people prioritise things like nice houses/areas, private schooling, nice holidays, etc, but that in many cases these choices funnel you in a direction that isn't necessarily the path to achieving true equality. She said she told her husband early on that she wouldn't be sacrificing her career and she 100% claims she would've left him had he gone back on his promise to share the leave.

I'm not sure what my thoughts are not having kids myself but I thought it was an interesting discussion. Do we end up forgoing equality for a better lifestyle?

But a fair number do seem to look down on SAHM though. I've seen it on here.

I earn more than my previous partners and I've waited until I'm financially secure (high paying job and own a house) to consider having children. I just saw it as responsible and feminist.

I would hate to financially rely on a man.

Most men imo actually do not want to spend significant amounts of time doing domestic work and childcare.

Many women do want to be around a lot for their kids.

Some of this is socialisation I’m sure, but I think plenty is innate. I think instead of asking ‘how can we prevent women from taking the career hit?’, we should be asking ‘how can we get to a point where we value unpaid work?’ If society valued unpaid work it would mean men and women could make freer choices.

I’ve tried it three times (0.6) and each time drifted into f/t hours. I tried to go 0.8 this year but they “didn’t let me” (not quite true; they just made it verrry difficult) so I went back f/t. For my “extra” 0.2, I only make £100/month. And then I pay £200/month extra childcare for the privilege. So yeah, I pay money to work more hours. It’s shit.

I’m not bloody surprised.

Where there is shared parental leave in Sweden, you get 450ish days between both parents- allowed to be taken until 4 years old. This way mums get to recover from pregnancy for a decent whack of time, and men have the option of a decent pat leave.

The UK equivalent just takes the woman’s leave to give to the parent who didn’t grow the baby and generally the blokes don’t have it funded properly any way. And it’s only until the baby is 1, MAX.

At 9 months my supply hadn’t settled properly, and I was leaking all over the shop. And my c section scar had infections on and off. Sleeping poorly, still not myself.

My husband is an involved, equal parent- but he absolutely wouldn’t have ‘taken’ my leave entitlement. Nor would I have happily given it to rush into work, block out my diary and pump in my office when I just wanted my baby…. for reasons of ‘equality’.

There is no equality in biology. He didn’t have a baby cut out of him. He wasn’t the food source. He didn’t have a bad back leftover from pregnancy.

Men need their own option for scandi style, extended parental leave. Taking it from the mother isn’t good enough.

There’s a difference between caring work being undervalued, and supporting a person to make it their entire identity. If caring work were equally valued with other work, then you’d see less of the “women’s work” nonsense.

I don’t think people looking down on SAHMs is devaluing caring work, more the despair at a woman putting herself in what is usually a vulnerable position where her wants, needs and self-actualisation are put on the back burner for everyone else. It is of course entirely possible to be a SAHM, not vulnerable financially or otherwise and perfectly content, but I would say it’s unusual.

I have a high status professional job, which I do part time, but I consider raising my children to be my most meaningful work and my vocation. Society does not agree! People are impressed by my job but no one gives a stuff about the child-rearing. If raising children was seen as a hugely important and skilled endeavour (which it is), it would change a lot for how men and women behave and how families work.

Quite sad on a feminist-leaning forum to see so much sexism. Women as 'nurturers' and men as 'earners.' Grim.

I agree. The struggle is how to make it work. Jobs are a contract with a company but who will foot the cost of carers? I can't see it being financially viable for the government to fund for a very long time unfortunately.

I don’t think valuing caring has to mean paying for it. It’s a cultural shift. At the moment the shift is in the other, more capitalist direction - more childcare, tax breaks etc to get mothers into work and away from unpaid caring.

It's often how it is in the animal kingdom though. I do believe females are genuinely more nurturing. Things don't always align with human ideas and ideologies.

Men can nurture and women can earn, but ime on average women are more interested in looking after children than men. Do you disagree?

True, but it always seems to end up coming down to money in some way.

It isn't impossible to do both - take your foot off the career pedal for a few years when the DC are young then ramp it back up later.

When DH and I were first married I earned around 25% more than him. I went back to work FT after DC1, but after DC2 went PT and didn't go for promotion etc for a good few years. When DC1 was at the end of primary school I stepped things back up. DC are now at university and I earn roughly 60% more than DH does.

I completely disagree with the "lifestyle choice" idea, where I live there just isn't the childcare available that would allow both parents to do professional jobs.

In my area the women who work full time are generally relying on another woman, ie their mum, to do unpaid childcare. In some cases the DH is doing child care, but that's where the DH is self employed or working from home in a super flexible job.

Everyone is doing the best they can in their circumstances.

Dare I say it's perhaps not just the effect of having a year or two out so much as the permanent shift to being less work focused in many cases.

@CaramacFiend thats because the children are still there after two years, and once they are at school the childcare gets harder.

You can’t really equate humans to other animals in this instance though. Animals have no way to better themselves through education, for example. Animals are purely driven by instinct and self preservation (and therefore passing on their genes)

Explore why though.

Or just go down to Smyths and wander around for 20 minutes and there you will find your answer.

I really don't think there is a fair way financially for fathers to be involved more than mothers- 2 weeks paternity leave (sometimes not even paid fully) and then they're not entitled to the same as mothers. Why is this? The government really need to look at this. My partner would have loved more time off but we just couldn't afford it.

I'm the higher earner and had nearly a full year off. It was very difficult financially but we made it work. I really did not want to give up any of my time with my child in order for my partner to have extra paternity leave. I don't see why father's aren't also entitled to longer paid paternity leave at the same time as the mother.

If my partner earned more I would definitely want to either reduce my hours or change to a less stressful and lower paid job, in order to have more time with my child. However, I enjoy our lifestyle and want to be able to provide as many opportunities for my child as I can, which wouldn't be possible if I lowered my wage. If we could maintain our lifestyle without me having to work then I would do it in a heartbeat in order to spend all my time with my child.

In terms of the stereotypical roles...I would say we're both guilty here...my partner always does the bins, mows the lawns, sorts the cars out...I tend to do more of the indoor jobs...mainly because I actually enjoy it! It also wouldn't bother me if my partner was a higher earner/if he was the sole earner.

What's influenced this I don't know...society, parents etc...

Interesting topic OP!

I think this post hits at the crux of the issue. There's the concept of what is ideologically fair and then the reality that we have to make things work within the limits of the system we live in (with the knowledge that anything we do will have almost zero impact on the bigger societal picture, but usually significant impact on our own lives).

Despite doing a lot of things that are extremely far removed from the natural processes (e.g. travelling to the moon) I think humans are still a lot more tied to our biology than we realise.

The 'purpose' of every species is arguably to procreate and perpetuate and that's ultimately what we do pretty much without exception. In fact, scientific discoveries aren't even that unnatural if you look at the innovation that occurs in other species like ants etc. It's really just an extension of exploring our environment.

Are there pressures on girls not to take science subjects? My son’s school was forever trying to encourage the girls to take up stem but they just didn’t want to. My son’s going to be doing engineering at Uni, his female friends from school are doing history and art🤷‍♀️

And animals absolutely do educate their young. In the more intelligent species like dolphins it's quite pronounced and different pods develop and pass down different skills to other pods.

I'm always reminded of this meme.