Men: you’re the cause of our baby crisis

[reegee]

Interesting article in the Times today. It's surely a valid point that Young women should consider the contribution to parenting that a partner might offer when considering having a baby?

Men: you’re the cause of our baby crisis

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/men-youre-the-cause-of-our-baby-crisis-qgqq288db?shareToken=5ca2dd91b4d7a7d64672da6f3bacdf7f

This isn't my experience at all, most women wanted to return to work. Perhaps unusually I had a shorter maternity leave second time round as I really didn't enjoy the second six months all that much.

I think working 3 or 4 days a week (probably for both parents) is optimal when children are pre-school age, maybe up to age 8 ? After that most people I know can cobble together a system of reciprocal favours and after school activities to manage full-time hours.

Sounds like a lot of male bosses I've encountered in my working life 🤷🏼‍♀️

Except people are usually keen to talk about how successful they are and how they are providing for their family financially......

I really don’t know that many PT workers. I think because I know mostly professional women. There are a couple who do 4 days a week but they still have full time childcare / kids are in school and it’s accepted that they’ll often do a bit of work on their day off ie their set up is pretty close to a FT dual career one. (One of the reasons I’ve never dropped to 4 days a week - seems like I’d just take a 20% paycut to be able to still spend the majority of my time working.)

The point, though, is that regardless of whether some women want to be primary carer (and more power to them, I think it’s an incredibly difficult job until the kids go to school - after that it’s a bit of a doss but if I’d spent 5 years at home wiping bums and playing with kids I’d like the easier times in exchange too!) - not all women do and it’s incredibly regressive to suggest that biology mandates that they should be at home. And that men need to get with the programme on this point.

it’s also incredibly stupid that in an age where HALF of all marriages break down that the non working women is left SO vulnerable to financial issues. I don’t know what the answers here are but the reality is that if you spend 10 years out of the workforce you are a bit stuffed if your husband changes his mind about being married.

But eostrogen in a female body will interact with organs differently than in a male body.

Otherwise humans would be the same across both sexes with some sort "release" button for propogating the species.

Not a bad idea come to think of it!

There is surely an evolutionary advantage to female behaviour after giving birth?

The behaviour, often called instinct, leads the female to nuture and stay with the baby, ensuring it's survival.

If she did not behave in that way, just gave birth and walked away, humans would not last very long. The human baby is very vunerable for quite some time after birth.

In our modern western world we now have a huge say in our fertility - if we want a child, when we want it, and with whom. We can also expect equal opportunity after the birth.

But this Men and women have the exact same sex hormones, they are just in different amounts and govern reproduction only. They do not control our thoughts, intelligence, decisions or autonomy would not stand up to examination. Intellgence maybe but thoughts, decisions and autonomy will be quite defined by sex hormones in times of feritiliy and birthing.

Even in countries with excellent paid paternity leave and good equality laws for women are seeing women having less childen. (Sweeden obvs!) 😁

1.47 million women were economically inactive because they were caring for children.

Why is it classed as economically inactive?

Sounds like a lot of male bosses I've encountered in my working life 🤷🏼‍♀️

Me too. I also think there is loads of room for women to be like that if that drives them.

@4plusthehound Because the only things that count in this country are things that involve/earn money

Why is it classed as economically inactive?

Because they're not in paid work nor are they looking for work.

It is interesting isn't Moops!

When we look at the costs that are tipping the country over the edge they are all coming from that economically inactive zone that women used to inhabit - end of life care, child care, obesity...

Perhaps they were not so economically inactive afterall!

True but we really shouldn't be relying on the unpaid work of women to keep society in check.

This is a very good point. I spent five years looking after an autistic child, struggling to teach him the basics because he didn’t sleep and screamed constantly. Also doing the housework, laundry, grocery shopping, cooking etc. Basically a housekeeper/nanny who was enabling my DH to work and making it possible for him to go on overnight business trips.

I also looked after three elderly family members who needed lifts, housework and time spent just having a cup of tea because they were isolated. Cooking for them occasionally so they weren’t just living on ready meals. On two occasions it turned into 24/7 care after a broken hip, because they had no money to pay for carers or residential care.

But I’d be classed as economically inactive and no value would be assigned to my work. I reckon an employee would have expected at least £40k or more for that job.

When my DC started school and I began applying for jobs, there was a lot of shouting about “who’s going to look after Granny, who’s going to take Uncle Joe to the supermarket? Because we can’t afford to pay anyone”. Funny because prior to that they had made a lot of derogatory comments about me not working!

Somehow women have kinid of expected that their unpaid labour has no economic value, but we do it for 'love'.

For example, a mother's love, the instinctual kind, is farmed by men and children - milked to get us to meet the needs of others, not only young children.

But love isn't enough of course and women feel shortchanged.

Can be hard to see from the outside though. I didn't see how all encompassing motherhood is before becoming one.

Once you’re at home with kids (even if it’s only part time) then you get landed with all sorts of other bollocks. You become the default option for errands, deliveries, letting workmen in, covering sick days for relatives kids, looking after elderly relatives who need a hand, etc. It’s never “just” motherhood.

Yea and the root of that is how economists all agreed to calculate Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the internationally agreed on measure of a nations economic activity. GDP doesn’t include the value of unpaid labour of any sort.

Without a doubt theMoops.

But worth pointing out that for generations women who stayed at home were considered a cost.

I am enjoying their vindication!

Apparently the government has recently realised that an unintended consequence of raising the retirement age for women is a huge increase in the need for elderly care.
Turns out a lot of women retiring at 60 were caring for elderly relatives.
Like @Blomonje says - as soon as a woman's time is seen to be available she gets tasks allocated to her.
Well it turns out the government has decreed that her time is not available and are now shocked that they themselves are being called upon to fill the gap previously and invisibly filled by women.

I watched some of that Birth Gap video upthread, about ten minutes, will watch the rest later but am really hoping they got round to asking women why they weren't having children. The first ten minutes was middle aged men speculating on this huge mystery of the fall in birth rates and saying over and over that no one could account for it or understand why. I was so frustrated listening to it. I just thought, why don't you get a mix of 50 women and just fucking ask them? I bet a pound to a penny they would say "because it's fucking hard work, horrendously expensive, and I'm not prepared to sign up for a lifetime of drudgery and poverty".

I don’t think it’s a mystery though as to why birth rates have continued to fall as they have been falling steadily since records began. The reasons why are multitude and well known. There is also no reason to encourage more births.

Plus with the Internet and forums like this, women get more of an idea what motherhood actually involves, and they don't want to do that to themselves.
Can't blame them either.

Before internet and forums, most women were doing infant and child care as girls/teens and so had a good idea from that anyway! I raised two younger siblings from infancy myself and earned extra money babysitting for other families from age 13. So I knew I wanted children of my own but also that I’d never expect older ones to raise younger ones. The fact I’d done motherhood with two siblings I think was one reason why I was comfortable having a SAHD as my husband was raised by his Nan and one of his life goals was to be the most hands on dad he could be.

Exactly, and the idea that our thoughts and feelings are ruled by our sex hormones is ridiculous. Men and women have the exact same sex hormones, they are just in different amounts and govern reproduction only. They do not control our thoughts, intelligence, decisions or autonomy.

Except.. I've seen two men go on Testosterone - one prescribed for low mood via the doctor, and one for body building via illegal online purchase.

Both radically changed, and dumped their partners and children. Both became harder/colder.

And just look at the difference in mood HRT can bring to women, or how affected some women are through their cycle.

Hormones clearly do have some kind of affect on our thinking - not that that means behaviour is pre-determined, or blanket affecting everyone, but to claim there's no difference when someone has 10x the testosterone of someone else, or 10x the oestrogen seems disingenuous.

It’s immensely valuable for a family to have a matriarch who keeps home life running and enables everyone else to work. Unexpected things crop up, kids get sick, elderly people need care, plus the usual domestic chores. Many mums my age rely on their own mums or MILs to enable them to work.

But it’s invisible work, and raising the retirement age has created a huge gap where domestic support is needed but older women are at work so they can’t do it any more.

Why does this role need to be undertaken by women?

Lots of families manage without a 'matriarch' by sharing responsibilities and not expecting women to facilitate others working.

Fine, well then it’s immensely valuable to have someone at home to support working family members. Because juggling sick days and deliveries and all of the other shit is much easier if you can just ring someone. Not to mention how it’s a massive help to have someone to do the ironing while you’re at work. In previous times that role would have been filled by an older woman but it doesn’t have to be. But based on experience I can tell you that women my age who have their mums to babysit and run the hoover round have it a damn sight easier than me. A huge number of women couldn’t work without that unpaid support.