Toby Young - women don't want most childcare either

[Xenia]

Toby Young in today's Sunday Telegraph magazine Stella argues men do not want even more boring mindless childcare. Well nor do women. So the answer is have good careers as women and then you can avoid that dullness. It is not a gender issue. Clearing up sick is as boring for women as men. Lower earners may well be shunted into that dull stuff and to keep the higher earner man they have to do it but Mr Young needs to know plenty of women don't want to do more childcare either. I always thought two hours a day was pretty good including weekends. Too much more and you'd rather be doing other things.

Sigh.

Whilst Xenia is wrong to imply that low paid work can't bring other satisfactions, she is right to wonder why it is that it's more often women than men sacrificing earnings for those satisfactions and/or not finding satisfaction and earnings in the same place.

WOmen's work is undervalued because cleaning ahd house keeping is dull and just about anyone can do it so of course it's got a low value. It is a hugely sexist thing if women start saying housekeeping and childcare is some wonderful nirvana of pleasure and goodness and they are lucky to be shunted into doing it - that women are special, that men could never do it, that it is hallowed and appreciated and when men say - I could never do what my wife does... it is just a plot ot keep women doing low paid dull stuff.

Men want meaning and satisfaction but most of them have the sense to know that high paid interesting careers give you a lot more meaning and satisfaction than minimum wage work or unpaid work as a housewife.

In relation to childcare, the simple truth is until very, very recently, only women were entitled to take maternity leave, therefore men would have to quit their job in order to take time off, and that time off would probably be unpaid. Unless the woman earned significantly more than the man, and in most couples I know the difference in income between the two couples pre-DC1 isn't much different, then financially it would make more sense for the woman to take paid maternity leave and look after the children. The vast majority of families won't earn enough to emply a nanny even with both parents working, and most childcare won't take in a baby of a few weeks old.

Also, many women won't be physically recovered enough from their birth within a few weeks to return to work, and they may be breastfeeding and not be able to express, so they physically need to be with their child in order to feed him/her.

It's only so recently that things have changed. But for 99% of the mothers on a site like this, the only option available to them would have been the mother taking maternity leave for at least a few months. And then their career might be interrupted.

I swear, sometimes when I read discussions like this it is as if some people believe men aren't getting pregnant and giving birth out of deliberate choice.

I would love things to change now men can take paternity leave. But it's not straightforward to judge women and their decisions when there really wasn't much choice.

actually meaningfully paid maternity leave is also relatively recent. Women were just expected to stop working when they got married and often required to stop working when they got married. Paid maternity leave is not the cause of this.

And it utterly frustrates me when the short term hit of childcare is calculated from the woman's income only. If there are two parents, the cost comes from both paypackets, just like the gas bill. I just don't think most women think through the real value of the income they are giving up when they make this calculation. The net present value of future earnings forgone is much, much bigger than the cost of your childcare today. I appreciate that that is not a simple calculation and it's not a purely financial consideration anyway but the approach of "I'd hardly cover my childcare costs so I'll do it myself and therefore subsidise my husband's career via my own" is not a well thought through strategy.

carry on wasting your life, spending hours and hours and here droning on about how dull it would be to spend all day with your children

its your time your wasting
i cannot be bothered to waste another second on this thread.

good luck

Every job has dull aspects.
Even a brain surgeon must think some days..."if I have to look at one more bit of cerebellum!"
But that doesn't mean they hate it all the time, or want to do anything else.
It means they are human.

My wages wouldn't have even covered childcare, so it was a no brainer for us.
I wanted to be here for my children whilst they were very young (0-3).
I am starting to think about the next stage of my life now.
Because that's what most people realise....it's just a stage of life.
Doesn't last forever.

there is a lot of denial on this thread.

women don't just happen to end up doing the low paid and thankless tasks.

that's why (IMO) Xenia' shouts so loudly for women to aim higher.

If you push men too hard on this subject, they may disappear imo.
So not worth it.

I see the armchair psychologists at it again,decry any pov no likey as denial,bitter etc
It's an enduring mn tactic some use,when they've exhausted reason they resort to psycho-dribble
Same as the you is well jel crew when one is nonplussed about engagement/marriage

Xenia's central message is fine. That women should have higher expectations, have careers, marry men who will do their fair share etc. but she ruins it with the 100 k jobs stuff. Very few people earn those kind of wages. And she never thinks of the others who by definition HAVE to earn lower wages in order to support the choices she makes. The ones who provide childcare, cleaning, gardening, dry cleaning, coffee, deliver shopping etc. Basic economics means that not everyone can command a high salary.

So the valid point gets lost. We need to value the supporting roles more and encourage more men to take them up in order to get the balance vs telling women they have to earn huge wages or they are letting the side down. We need it to be normal that a man can be the one to stay home when kids are sick, or leave early to do the school run. I see this much more in Belgium where there is not the same culture of presenteeism, so I know it CAN be done.

It's fair game to ask why is there an expectation of maternal guilt or giving up work
I've never seen men burdened with expectation in way women are when they are parents
And ime a lot of the pressure is women to other women.no man ever asked me why I work ft

Dh does his bit.
He looking after the dc over the last 4 days that I went away with my parents for a break.
Why wouldn't he?
He is their father and he is just as capable as me in that respect.
He just earns a lot more than i ever could and has many more professional qualifications than me ergo the economics dictate I do the majority of the childcare.
Xenia does make valid points and - for the most part - I agree with her BUT her complete and utter contempt for those less educated and fortunate (yes, luck does play a part sometimes!) than her really distresses me.

But I don't care why you work ft scottishmummy.
Why should you care why I don't?

Badvoc - He just earns a lot more than i ever could and has many more professional qualifications than me ergo the economics dictate I do the majority of the childcare.

but why do so many women say the same thing as you? why is this the case?

It may surprise you badvoc but the thread isn't about you,it's a general discussion
A thread to discuss subjective opinion,experience and pov.
The issue is too much personalisation on mn,too much ire,detracting from the point

Because historically women earn less than men...even those doing the same or comparable job.
I don't like it.
It sucks.
But that's how it was and is ATM.
A part time admin job would pay me a pittance (I know, I have done them!) and I would far rather be at home with my kids than paying a CM all my wage for the pleasure of working.
I don't want to get into personal stuff, but there were/are very good reasons I stayed at home. Not just money wise. It rarely is that simple IMHO.

Gah! Hit post too soon!
X posted with scottishmummy.
I don't want to get personal, but that is my experience and pov!
I am thinking of re training (with Dhs full support :)) and find this topic endlessly distressing/fascinating.
I doubt if my re training will get me a job tbh. It it will be for me. Because - in the words of loreal - Im worth it :)

carry on wasting your life, spending hours and hours and here droning on about how dull it would be to spend all day with your children

its your time your wasting
i cannot be bothered to waste another second on this thread

I don't know why I waste the time either!
I am not a traditional type person-I wouldn't go into a sexist marriage where I was forced to give up things that I don't want to give up.

I would like to shout it, since it doesn't appear to go in. I HAD CHILDREN BECAUSE I WANTED TO SPEND TIME WITH THEM, I WANTED TO PUT THEM BEFORE MY CAREER. Time was the important thing-and not quality time-just time. I don't find it dull and I wasn't 'minding' them.
If my career was that important to me then I wouldn't have had children. I wanted my job to fit around them and not them fit around my job. DH was quite happy to go out to work so I couldn't care two hoots who thinks he should have stayed at home-it suited us. We talked about it first-had I wanted to work full time we would have done it differently. He was very hands on-changing nappies, doing the ironing and it was simple to leave him with them and go away, without issuing a single instruction-they were his children, his house. I was not a skivvy, I was out and about and busy doing all sorts of interesting things that you don't have time for if you are working and balancing home life.

It is called choice. Couple should work out what suits them and not expect others to feel the same.

I dont see parenthood as a giving things up competition
Dp and I had the big talk early on,nursery etc.no way was I giving anything up
I love my job,I get a satisfaction and solvency from it that I wouldnt get as housewife

Two careers in a family often mean a lot more giving-things-up than one career and a SAHP or a PT worker. We are all in the business of maximising our own family's wellbeing, and we all have different equations.

It isn't a competition. Talk about it first. Do what suits you.
I see us as a unit-it makes it easier for each to do as they want.

I am pretty sure I would not have married my DH if he had wanted to do most of the childcare.
If I was only able to see them 2 hours every day, I would have been devastated.

Quite probably age plays a part too. I waited a long time. Had I only worked a few years I dare say that I might of felt differently. As it was was the next, exciting stage of my life-not one I wanted to miss by being out in paid employment when I was lucky enough to have choice.

Conversely I wouldn't be with dp who wouldn't support me to advance career
I wouldnt put myself in position of no career whilst his went stellar
We chose nursery ft,had It all planned,it suits our preference