But WHY does care always fall to the women?

[falcon82]

I keep seeing discussions about how childcare costs keep women out of the workplace. I know the reality is that it IS women who take on the bulk of the childcare responsibilities - and care for older people too - but why is that?

And more importantly why are we just saying 'oh that's just how it is'? Why do people, on a personal level, not expect more from their male partners and relatives?

I see a lot of (heterosexual) female friends complaining about the above issue - that childcare costs and/or employers refusing them part time work hours amount to sex discrimination and I always want to ask, 'why doesn't your husband go part time? Why doesn't your boyfriend take on some of the care?'

But that never seems to even enter the discussion.

What's often missed is that het couples usually involve than man being older.

So even in their 20s a couple of years difference between 2 lawyers or doctors for example is enough that the younger female earning less will then be the one who's pay will be compared to the childcare cost.

Because it's bloody hard work to go against social norms and no-one thanks you for it?

Just to give one tiny trivial example: every time there's a birthday party DD's invited to, I get a WhatsApp invite and so do all the other mums. Every time I ask the host to add DH to the group (they usually have no issue with this).

DH is perfectly capable of getting DD to a party without my intervention (apparently none of the other dads are similarly capable though). He probably wouldn't bother with a present or card though. I'd feel embarrassed if we didn't do that so I sort it.

Sounds trivial but when I look back over the last 10 years, there's been a heck of a lot of this sort of stuff and 90% of the time I'm the person planning stuff, even if he actually does it. It's like having a kind of slightly crap employee? An apprentice or something?

I think that the lack of affordable childcare, out of standard working hours childcare and grandparents who are able and/or willing to act as childcare is a huge factor in all this.

So many (mostly) women get trapped due to this even when they do want to work.

*I think that the lack of affordable childcare, out of standard working hours childcare and grandparents who are able and/or willing to act as childcare is a huge factor in all this.

So many (mostly) women get trapped due to this even when they do want to work.*

But that's exactly my point. These are seen as problems that limit women, when really they limit parents.

It's like having a kind of slightly crap employee? An apprentice or something?

Yep. This is exactly what it seems like. Women have to take on the bulk of care for children/relatives/the home because ultimately they can't rely on their male partner to do it properly. Or at all.

When you are trained from birth to, you’re going to experience emotions of guilt and like you’re a “bad” mother or as a pp put it start to think that women naturally “care” more than men do. You start thinking “it biology” or women are “wired to be primary carer” and even that “all a baby wants/needs is their mum”

It’s not easy to challenge something that you’ve been told your whole life. It’s like being raised in a cult only there is no outside world to open your eyes. You’re in this cult 24/7 from birth to death and the social consequences of going against it are still very real and nasty. You even have to face possibility that even if you do fight it, your children may hate you for it because they will be raised with the same messaging their whole lives too.

I often wonder the same.

And why can’t they rely on their partner? Because men are raised from birth that it’s literally the woman’s job to do the child care and make the child related decisions. They’re taught from birth too that men are useless at child rearing (driven home by amusing TV shows showing the bumbling useless Dad and the long suffering much smarter than him mum). Men also believe like many women do (even some on this very thread! Telling you this is just like a cult), that women are biologically wired to want to be the primary carer…that it’s as nature intended and going against that would harm their children. What father doesn’t want what’s best for his children? This same belief system of ‘mum knows best and is the best for the children because biology’ then means that “naturally” if the relationship breaks down that children are “better off” with their mother and so a “good” man sods off, pays CMS.

But women are biologically wired to want to care for their children in a way men, by and large, aren't. There are many good, biological reasons for this starting by women knowing who their children are in a way men didn't, by (generally) only having one young child at a time, by investing relatively more in fewer children, and by the first job of a father being to protect his children and their mother from other men.

Biology doesn't just stop being important when it's inconvenient to feminist theory.

I think it's kind of a self forfilling prophesy. Women generally have less career prospects because of the sexist assumption that they will have caring responsibilities either now or in the future. Because of this by the time a couple have kids, the man will usually be out-earning the women. This is then compounded by the woman taking maternity leave, at least some of which is nessercery for recovery from birth and longer is needed if breastfeeding, which can't be done by the man.

By the end of mat leave the women's career will has stood still for nearly 2 years, as companies will have been reluctant to promote someone pregnant or on leave, while the man's earning potential (which was probably already higher) has continued to rise. For the individual couple, it then makes financial sense that the higher earner continues to work, while the lower earner makes career sacrifices.

The problem isn't the decision that is made for the woman to take on caring, case by case that usually makes sense. The actual problem is the wider system that ensures the women is usually lower earner.

No, this is not really the case. It’s just what you’ve been told in a post-God world that instead of a woman’s place is as God ordained, a woman’s place is as “biologically determined”. It’s really not, it’s all a lie. It’s just patriarchy adapting to the modern times.

Why is parenting seen only as 'limiting'? Isn't making any life choice 'limiting', if you want to see it that way?

Why isn't care valued and seen as an important, valued and valuable occupation?

Are we genuinely making free choices, or conforming to what we're told is desirable? Are we just playing a part in a relentless quest for 'growth' and economic boom?

All lives involve making choices, trade offs, decisions and sacrifices. It's just not possible to have a life where you do all the things - time is finite, resources are finite.

Practicalities: women are pregnant for the best part of a year, then there's birth recovery, then there's possibly breastfeeding, maternity leave. Biological reasons mean that women are most often the primary carer for the first good year or two - then if one is having more, that extends.

I would agree with the comments saying biology etc

Being a higher earner in my early 30s than my DH, wanting children and disliking the corporate world and stress I can safely say my biological urge to nest and become a mother is very very strong. Perhaps prematurely we have talked about me giving a lot of it up. I cannot wait for the next chapter (if we are blessed to have children). I would rather work primarily for my child and family than a boss quite simply.

You are are replacable at work.
You are irreplaceable at home.

Practicalities: women are pregnant for the best part of a year, then there's birth recovery, then there's possibly breastfeeding, maternity leave. Biological reasons mean that women are most often the primary carer for the first good year or two - then if one is having more, that extends.

Not really. If a normal average pregnancy you can work until you go into labour or shortly before. Then you need 4-8 weeks recovery depending on birth trauma. After that, you can return to work FT even if breastfeeding because you can pump, if you don’t want to use perfectly good formula. Lets not pretend “biology” forces women to be “primary carer for the first good year or two”. It’s choice, enforced by social and cultural pressure.

Biology only forces at most a few months out of the workforce, not a year or years. Of course, our lovely society put golden shackles on us to ensure we are not so freely choosing to be primary caregiver for at least a year with paid maternity leave (knowing that habits will be formed and mothers will accept their socially prescribed role as primary caregiver for the rest of childhood).

At least now it’s shifting to parental leave so that child rearing can be properly shared between both parents- but even so we still call it maternity leave (mothers leave) and think of it as a mothers prerogative to claim. And advise women on MN to not let her DH have equal parental leave because “biology”

I agree with @Phineyj , it is hard to go against the social norms. DH and I took it in turns to go part time. During his part time stint, the school would almost always call me first with any issues like a child becoming unwell, even though he was listed as the first contact. And even though we asked them repeatedly to call him first.

My job has emergencies and his does not but it seemed to be assumed that I would find it easier to get away - definitely not the case.

How to change this?

you can work until you go into labour or shortly before. Then you need 4-8 weeks recovery depending on birth trauma. After that, you can return to work FT even if breastfeeding because you can pump,

You're trying to sell this as desirable?

Practicalities: women are pregnant for the best part of a year, then there's birth recovery, then there's possibly breastfeeding, maternity leave. Biological reasons mean that women are most often the primary carer for the first good year or two - then if one is having more, that extends.

I know this is always the argument but I think it's a bit over-egged. 76% of women have stopped breastfeeding by 6 weeks. There is really no reason for the woman to have to take a 'year or two' out of work. Of course if they genuinely want to that's fine, but more often than not it's because they don't truly trust their partner to care for the child properly, to the same standard they would.

Plus all of this talk about 'biological practicalities' doesn't explain why brothers will frequently leave elder care to their sisters and wives.

Elder care is another kettle of fish altogether, falcon.

No. I’m saying that it’s not biologically determined that you must be out of work for a “good year or two”. It’s a choice. You can choose whatever you desire. I just get frustrated with women choosing to be home for a year or two and then pretending they had no choice because of “biology”.

This, the less political and more realistic truth. Accurate enough summary for many of us, I'm sure.

at the point we had kids we were on similar salaries, me slightly higher but no great gap. Both great at our jobs and had strong potential for further growth, however I was much better equipped to deal with children (more experience with kids, more interest, and then after 10 months of breastfeeding I had the stronger relationship). So I stepped back to part time and then flexible freelance.

in our careers, operating at a high level requires long hours and lots of random travelling, so not really feasible for both to do at the same time unless we completely outsourced childcare (something I have more aversion to than husband).

So 5 years later I am stuck in a catch - 22: I have more caring responsibilities because I earn less, but I can’t earn more because caring responsibilities.

I think women feel social obligations more, because we are blessed with higher intelligence. We are also smarter because we know what has true value in life. Clue: it's not material wealth. So we run our lives to different rules.

I suspect men, if given the chance, wouldn't bother with social niceties like birthday gifts or Christmas lunch or obligatory visits with old relatives. Those things are constructed by women and are judged by women as worthy. Men don't see them as worthy, so they feel no guilt or value-consequence if they don't do them. They are simply not smart enough to realise that your happiness on this earth is directly proportional to the love you give and receive.

But! The smart men in my life do not fit this mould at all. From observation, they are smart in their relationships and know the true worth of love vs material things.

unfortunately I think biology has a lot to answer for as well as Ofcourse social conditioning. For me personally I didn’t not want to be without my babies, even though I rebelled against all other cultural conventions I was brought up with that kept women in their place. I always found myself to be more nurturing than most of my siblings. When I had dc it gave me anxiety to be away from them, my Dh didn’t quite get it even though he did everything else except for the bfeeding. When my nephew was born I just couldn’t do the night wakings as my dsis needed support I just struggled and wanted my sleep. I notice that with my family member who adopted she really struggled with night wakings too whereas with my own biological child I was in survival mode and just got on with it? It’s really difficult because when it comes down to it my Dh does all the house work/ most of the ‘womens work’ that I hate doing but I want to be with my children. Im back at work as I don’t like relying on someone for money and I’m conscious of savings pensions etc but I have background anxiety about by dc which I know my Dh doesn’t have. It annoys me as I wish I could just do more hours at work but I find it so hard to be away for too long. My dc started nursery and cries so much (has asd) but doesn’t seem to bother my Dh as it does me, why 😩

Personally I couldn’t care less about social obligations, I go no contact quite easily with relatives and don’t put up with toxic bs from relatives particularly the patriarchy whereas my Dh loves his family but hates ever