'I do all these things AND work FT'

[Bumpitybumper]

I see this on Mumsnet a lot but have just experienced it in real life. I have two friends (A&B). Friend A is a SAHM to school age kids and Friend B works FT in quite a stressful job. Friend B was just lamenting that they don't understand how Friend A fills her time as she manages to work FT AND do everything Friend A does.

The thing is, Friend B has a much smaller (yet lovely) house that is pretty chaotic in fun energetic way. It is never the tidiest or cleanest but it's not disgusting either. Friend A on the other hand has a much bigger house that is pretty immaculate most of the time. Friend A does all the school runs and volunteers at school. Friend B needs wraparound care in order to get to work so drops her kids of at 8 and collects around 17:30. Friend A cooks amazing meals for her family, has her children's friends round for fun playdates and activities and is generally incredibly on top of everything. Friend B is understandably more stretched and isn't in the position to cook lavish meals every day of the week or have friends round when she's at work. Friend B's husband does a lot (of course absolutely fair and right) so she doesn't have to attend every parents evening, sew all the badges for extracurricular clubs or assist with all the homework etc. Friend A does pretty much all of that as husband works such long hours.

I actually think both are amazing and very productive people that channel their energy, time and talent in different channels. I just struggle to understand though how Friend B can't appreciate that she isn't doing the same as Friend A or at least doing it to the same standard. Before people suggest I'm Friend A, I have my own business so don't really fit in either camp but used to be a SAHM so I guess can see Friend A's efforts more.

AIBU to think that Friend B is a bit deluded?

Kids care about feeling loved and secure. There are multiple ways of showing that to them, including working to provide an income, making the wider world seem an interesting and worthwhile place to grow up in (whether by volunteering or doing paid work), taking an interest in their lives, sharing the things you love with them. Not everyone looks constantly for external validation, or sees others’ actions only in that light. I wouldn’t automatically assume the serving of “amazing meals,” ensuring playdates are frequent and fun, or sewing on badges was for external display purposes only - these are all ways, among many potential ways, of showing love and interest and providing a secure, stable environment. It’s not so much what a person does, but the way in which they do it that is meaningful - one person’s spotless home is cold and sterile and resentful, another’s is the creation of a safe, comfortable, happy space.

My type of feminism is women having a choice, the only women I feel sorry for are those who don't have a choice and have to either work or stay at home due to circumstances when they'd love to do the other. @Peablockfeathers

This is my view of it too.

I know someone (not fictitious before anyone says so!) whose avaricious husband forced her to go back to work once her maternity pay was no longer full pay at six months. She had been exclusively breastfeeding (no bottles even) until then and then had to pump round the clock, while juggling a Biggish Job and still being a new mother, to try to get enough milk for her baby to be in childcare fifty hours a week (8-6 x 5). I am not criticising the fact that the baby was in childcare of course but she was really not happy about having to ‘make this decision’ which was never hers to make. Nothing feminist about that imo.

Meanwhile, I decided to take some time out when I had babies fairly close. It was important for me to be at home when they were so young, although I also wanted them to see us both working when they were older. I know my choice won’t be for everyone. There were also several practical reasons which meant we would have had to have them with a nanny for wraparound, after pick up from two different nurseries too. We didn’t want this personally and for many reasons again. I had savings and had a decent pension already due to always being financially responsible and my husband and I discussed at length all the risks and what would be done to minimise them. I appreciate my privilege in being able to do this.

I’m sure my decision, certainly at face value, would be criticised on here. But my own experience of wondering how the hell we were going to make it work and the experience of someone we know above is why I try not to judge too quickly about a decision a woman seemingly makes, whether it’s to go back to work or stay at home.

Well said. This is almost exactly how I feel.

I don't blame Indvidual SAHM's (well, unless they talk about working mums paying for someone else to raise their children), I blame the sexist society we live in that hold mothers and fathers to a different standard and put far too much pressure on mothers yet nowhere near enough pressure on fathers.

I just want to live in a world where women aren't automatically seen as the default parent and men just 'help'. I want it to be more equal.

I'm pregnant with twin girls and I don't want them growing up in a world where society thinks something is wrong with them if they become mothers themselves one day and want to work full time. It wouldn't make them 'wired' incorrectly or not 'maternal', it would simply make them working parents.

It isn't too much to ask.

I know someone (not fictitious before anyone says so!) whose avaricious husband forced her to go back to work once her maternity pay was no longer full pay at six months. She had been exclusively breastfeeding (no bottles even) until then and then had to pump round the clock, while juggling a Biggish Job and still being a new mother, to try to get enough milk for her baby to be in childcare fifty hours a week (8-6 x 5). I am notcriticising the fact that the baby was in childcare of course but she was really not happy about having to ‘make this decision’ which was never hers to make. Nothing feminist about that imo.

That's awful.

It should absolutely be a joint decision, no couple should be making the decision alone. Especially if we are talking about a longer term SAHM role because not everyone wants to be the sole provider financially which can often be stressful and put one person under a lot of pressure. I don't always think that is considered as men have been seen as the financial providers for a very long time.

It also means a discussion can be had about the father and if it's possible for him to request flexible working, go part time or even be the one to be a SAHP. I don't think that discussion currently happens enough because it is just assumed it's a decision for mothers to make.

Sadly there are always extreme situations - people in abusive relationships where one partner forces the other to behave in a certain way- whether that's forcing them back into work or forcing them to be sole provider. No amount of legislation about transferable leave or flexi working is going to be effective for people who are abusive, sadly.

We're talking about a minority though, and while we can all cite anecdotal examples, I like to operate on the basis that women and men fundamentally want similar things out of life, ie: a healthy work/life balance, the opportunity to experience different things.... and if they have children, the opportunity to nurture them as well as to provide.

Sadly there are always extreme situations - people in abusive relationships where one partner forces the other to behave in a certain way- whether that's forcing them back into work or forcing them to be sole provider. No amount of legislation about transferable leave or flexi working is going to be effective for people who are abusive, sadly.

I wasn't talking about abusive situations personally, though I would agree that pp's example would be classed as abusive. I was more talking generally about how ingrained it is in society for men to be providers and women to be the default parent. I think changing attitudes within society could address some of this. Such as reframing it as a choice both men and women need to make together once they become parents, not just a choice that women need to make about if they go back to work full time, part time or not at all. Men need to consider this too.

I agree that there will always be extreme situations but language is also important and doing simple things such as stop using 'help' when it comes to men parenting their own children would go a long way.

Yes. It is a tremendous pressure on the sole earner. My husband earns well but in an industry where you can also get sacked at the drop of a hat, particularly if held to higher account as he is due to his position. Sure, he could always get a new job and has funds to fall back on on a rainy day but it would be insincere of me to not share that I often worried about this during my time off. So I feel more secure about myself and him now working again.

I wish threads about this debate contained more concrete advice for women and indeed men about the what ifs and, as you mention, solutions. Especially those that are a small step towards a more equitable future for our kids if not us, and result in women not feeling compelled to leave the workplace in the first case.

Completely agree @SouthLondonMum22

I was referring to the extremes, where it really is abusive. Frankly any situation where one partner forces the other (whether that's forcing them into full time work or forcing them to be the sole provider) when there are alternatives available, well, that's abusive

As you say, between the extremes there's a whole range of nuances which perpetuate those ingrained attitudes: the fact that the vast majority of women are the default give up work/ go part time parent.

To me it seems strange that a woman and a man partner each other, make a commitment, set up home, decide to embark on a family and then once the child arrives, societal prejudices expect all that shared life experience and joint thinking to go out the window and for the couple to default into entirely separate roles. It's certainly not what dh and I wanted which is why we were determined (even while I was a breast feeding mum of a 3 month old) that we would both continue to work and both be hands on parents. Having achieved a good balance in raising our now adult children, it's rather depressing that despite all the wonderful provisions like long mat leave, shared parental leave, subsidised nursery fees, these ingrained prejudices still exist in society.

To me it all comes back to the child. It's not just about mum and dad both having a healthy balance of caring and providing in their life, imo it's actually beneficial to the child to have parents with this balance. I believe seeing both mum and dad in nurturing and providing roles is something that stays with them and will help them to not feel the pressure of societal prejudices and expectations.

I absolutely agree.

I discussed this with someone briefly a few pages ago, forgive me if it was you but a change I would make is a longer paternity leave. 2 weeks is woeful and also encourages fathers to be more hands off.

Some companies, usually tech ones, are now offering 3-4+ months of paternity leave and that should be standard across the board.

Your last paragraph really resonated with me; mainly because my partner temporarily was a SAHD (he took redundancy and we used that as “income”) then went part-time, again temporarily. I think it all comes down to what kind of man the father is. In an ideal world, natural selection will weed out these types of sexist men, who expect parenting and housework to be done by women while they proceed with their normal life, because nobody will reproduce with them. We can dream!

The way I see it, the reason many feminists take issue with the SAHM model is because feminism is not about applauding the choices of individual women who have found a way to make patriarchal systems work in their favour. Feminism is a political movement that centres the interests of women as a class, working to minimise our disadvantage and further our equality. Unfortunately there is no way (that I've found anyway) to squeeze the square peg of the SAHM into that round hole.
Sometimes individual women want to do things to benefit themselves and/or to benefit men that obstruct the progress of women as a class.
But most feminists get this. If you're a woman you understand that living in a world not geared up for you means you navigate it the best you can. You understand that emotional decisions, love for individual men and children, will often be prioritised over political ones, and self interest is most people's primary driver. Most feminists get this and in these discussions should not be attacking individual women for non feminist choices.
The criticism is of the model itself, with some challenge to the thinking that every choice made by a woman must be supported and applauded simply because a woman has made it.

It was me, I just wanted to share more thoughts on this now it's come round to pat leave again - the problem with the take-up of extended paternity leave is that it's become political. Counter-intuitively, it's considered in some radical-feminist viewpoints as anti-feminist to be in favour of extended paternity leave, as if it's a "men's rights" thing.

It really, really isn't. I'm a bit of a raging radfem but I see extended paternity leave as primarily benefiting the mum, and indirectly benefiting all childbearing-aged women in the workplace.

But when I've talked about this on twitter (I know, I know cesspit etc) I've been shut down by some of the radfems on there "who cares about the menz". (I don't particularly care about the menz. It's good for the womenz.)

But, looking at it in that light, it's less of a surprise that it's the more "woke" companies that do extended pat leave. For example, at my dh's company, they put he/him on his online profile (without asking him - what's the point eh) and little things like that are pointers about the political alignment of a company.

So you'll get little traction trying to campaign for this politically.

I'm a bit of a raging radfem but I see extended paternity leave as primarily benefiting the mum, and indirectly benefiting all childbearing-aged women in the workplace.

Same here. Of course it benefits women.

There was actually a thread about this very thing a few months ago now I believe where OP was irritated that her ex (who wasn't involved, to be fair) was able to take a long paternity leave, I believe it was something like 3-4 months and obviously, the specific situation was wrong because he wasn't doing anything with his baby but it soon turned into a general discussion about longer paternity leave.

Many people (I'm assuming women) had the same view you are talking about. It was generally seen as a negative thing and something that should remain unchanged. I was surprised that so many women couldn't seem to understand how much it would benefit them, not only at home but should they go back to the work place too.

Extended paternity leave would be great, but I'd have given my right some of the legislation that's already in place now. Eg transferable parental leave. I would have loved to have eg 6 months leave or 9 months leave and then transferred the remainder to dh. I think it's best for all- it means the children get that 1:1 time with each parent, not just a couple of hours for bath and bed time but with both parents experiencing the reality of all day caring. If a father has spent several months doing that, it's bound to influence things going forward too. It's much more difficult for a dad to shrug off responsibility for looking after a baby or for doing domestic chores if he's had a period of time being solely in charge of those things.

Personally, I'd have a use it or lose it policy because my concern with transferable parental leave would be that it would actually just end up with mothers taking all or the majority of it and nothing would change.

I wouldn't force anyone to take it and I'd give the option of taking it together or one taking some leave and then the other taking some leave but to me, some leave needs to be available for fathers only which is longer than 2 weeks.

Sounds like friend B is working her arse off to provide for her children and bring in money. Sounds like friend A some how doesnt bring in any money and has a huge house. Id assume either sponging her way through life off her husbands money or possibly fiddling the system? Sounds like friend B is amazing and doing her best to show her children work ethic and providing for them. Sounds like friend A could get a job but instead fills her time pottering around and sponging. She will be in for a shock when she has no pension in later life as she hasnt worked. God forbid if she ever split up with her husband she would be financially on her arse. Sounds like friend B is financially independent and will have a decent pension in later life. Depends how you want to live i suppose but id say hats off to friend B who is clearly working hard for her family and the children she created!

@SouthLondonMum22 yes, you're probably right.

I'm an 'oldie' (12 week maternity leave, no paternity leave, no free hours of childcare whatsoever) so tbh what's available now in 2023 looks pretty damn good from where I'm coming. But yes, the introduction of some leave specifically for the father only would help to balance the situation.

I'm under no illusions- there would probably still be a minority of dead beat dads who wouldn't want it, or fat cat Big Job dads who'd claim the work place would shut down without them, or indeed some controlling mothers who wouldn't cope with the idea of the perfectly competent dad doing some sole care. But legislation needs to be framed in the context of the majority and I've no doubt this would be hugely beneficial to most families

OP you are taking Bs comments too literally. Clearly their point is that they are a mother and ensure their kids are fed and cared for, they do all the family admin, whilst also working FT. It's you who's turning it into a competition by saying A cooks better, cleans better etc. A has all the time in the world to cook and clean but B is still doing it, even if they spend less time on those things.

A is certainly in the more vulnerable position being so reliant on her husbands income, so I definitely don't envy her free time. Doesn't sound like much of a life for her DH either.

Personally, I'd have a use it or lose it policy because my concern with transferable parental leave would be that it would actually just end up with mothers taking all or the majority of it and nothing would change.

that's exactly what happened in Sweden. Nothing changed when joint leave was introduced. Men only started taking their leave when it was use it or lose it.

I agree that things are getting better but personally I'm not a fan of transferable parental leave. I guess I'm one of those unpigeonholable mums because I'm a big "extended" breastfeeding fan while I really believe in equal career opportunities for mums and dads. If you do so-called shared parental leave, it generally ends up being 6mo mum then 6mo dad or similar, which isn't good for breastfeeding beyond 6mo, and because it isn't concurrent, isn't helpful when mum is struggling to recover from a traumatic birth as I was.

For me the gold standard is what we were fortunate to have with my dd: I took 10ish months off, and dh took 6mo off, but both starting from the time of birth. The fact we were both off immediately after the birth was almost literally lifesaving for me, I was physically very ill and had severe ppd, morbid thoughts etc.

Whereas shared parental leave is generally consecutive rather than concurrent.

I have Norwegian friends. The mum took the first nine months and the dad took the next three. Which strikes me as a great system.

Covering the first year via a combination of leave would be a great goal.

I’m in Scandinavia too and this is what most people do, or the mum takes the first 240 days and then the dad takes 240 days.

@Mummymummy89 fair point though it's important to note too that bf doesn't necessarily have to stop when a mother returns to work. I bf all my 3 until well over a year despite having a very short ML first time round just 12 weeks.

Bf rates actually has a far greater correlation with factors like education level and socio economic status of the mother than whether she's working or not. Most of my 'mum friends' who had babies when I did and who were returning to professional roles after a short ML bf their babies. Conversely other mums I knew who didn't return to work chose to bottle feed, even though in practical terms, bf would have been easier for them rather than us WOHM who were pumping.

Not judging, just stating facts

No indeed, I breastfed for over 2.5y even though I'd returned to work before 1y. But it just is much harder if you go back to work "too soon" (inverted commas because it's relative/personal choice). Because if you go back to whole-day work at just 6mo, it's hard to supplement with just food and water. You'll need to supplement with formula bottles realistically.

Don't get me wrong, I'm also a big fan of mixed feeding. Mix feeding is a great solution. But my dd wasn't ready for solids, or sippy cups, till 8mo. No way could I have returned to work at 6mo unless we relied very heavily on bottles.

I don't think mums ought to have to give up leave for the dads. There, I'm with the radfems.