Motherhood 'devastates' women's earnings - well, obviously!

[neenztwinz]

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/10/mothers-wages-fawcett-society

I know it's not fair and it's not equal opportunities that men can have babies and not be affected in the workplace whereas women are affected enormously, but isn't this just obvious and something we should accept when we decide to have children?

If you don't want your earnings affected by having kids, don't have them, or get your partner to stop working to look after your kids while you go back to work. Then your wages won't be affected. But you have to accept, surely, that when you have kids you will not be able to earn as much as before?

The article doesn't acknowledge that lots of women don't want to earn as much or work as much after they have kids. It says something should be done to redress the balance so that women can earn as much as men after having kids. But the govt should be making it more attractive for women to stay at home and look after their own kids, if that is what they want, rather than thinking of ways to push us all back to work and become as 'successful' as men.

Interesting the 'power' argument - some might say women have the power because in a break-up they take the children. Men might take the money and earning capacity but women keep what really matters

Women can have the upper hand in the workplace if they forsake parenting. Most want the upperhand in parenting however. I don't think that's an 'unequal' trade off.

Is this a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it syndrome?

But on a more fundamental level, I don't see how working a 40+ hour week and not seeing your kids much is the 'upper hand'

I didn't mean to invoke some kind of discussion about what women should do.

I consider myself to be strongly feminist, but to me that is about women having equal rights to do what they want in terms of work opportunities/parenting.

Personally I don't want the 'upper hand' in parenting and would rather share equally while retaining my career. No-one accuses a man of wanting to 'have his cake and eat it' for earning a good salary. Instead he is congratulated for being 'hardworking'.

It's all about individual choice Monkey and we are all equally entitled to make that for ourselves. I would never judge the choice that you have made because it is right for you.

Brett, I think if a man wanted to take time off when the kids are sick or be the one who has a year off after the birth, people would say he wanted to have his cake and eat it.

Men generally have a career forsaking being the primary carer. Women vice versa.

I am also a feminist - who isn't?

Could I ask Highon, what is your background on this issue ie are you a writer/sociologist/lecturer etc? Same question to MT and Brett? My background is that I was brought up by a sahm, I have three sisters, mum left school at 15 and all she wanted to do was have babies, my dad was educated to uni level and had a good job, and supported the family.

Mum got to about 40 and thought 'is this it? I am clever enough to have a career and never had the chance!' So she became a youth worker (a very good one) and did all the equal opportunites courses etc. So from my teens all the talk in my house was of feminism, women's rights etc and I loved it.

After about 10 years, mum got a bit fed up of working and realised she actually did love being sahm after all.

I am educated to degree level and have a profession (journalism), but have always felt that having a large family and being there for them the way my mum was for us is what I wanted.

I think Highon has so many interesting points to make, but in a wider social context, ie that women should not make themselves vulnerable by getting out of the workplace. But on a family by family basis, the woman having kids and staying at home and the man going out and supporting the family just works. And a lot of women are really happy with that situation.

For women to think 'ooh, I'd better keep working in case me husband leaves me' is very depressing.

I agree with Brettgirl. Women and men should be able to combine being a parent and having a career, if that is what they want. It will probably result in a bit of compromise on both counts, but that's ok with me, that is what life is all about.

Neenztwins, I am a lecturer, but not in this area.

It is a bit depressing to think about family breakdown, but unfortunately it's very common - I think somebody said 33% further up the thread. If you factor in unmarried couples (a slightly higher % of whom break up) and unhappy couples who stay together for financial reasons, that's a lot of families.

For a lot of couples, the woman staying at home does work - and for some, it works until the relationship breaks down, and the woman finds herself in a crap situation. And obviously for lots of women there is no way of knowing whether they are going to be in the happy majority or the unhappy minority.

Over on the lone parent boards, you won't find too many women who think that they had all the power post-break up. Women don't necessarily keep the kids anymore - most dads have regular access to their kids, as is right and proper. So women can find themselves in a frankly dreadful situation, where they are trying to raise their kids on benefits, while their ex-H is off with a new life/family and still seeing his kids several times a week. For a lot of people this feels like having your cake and eating it. But really it's just a result of a society where men retain their earning power post-kids, and women lose it.)

On a personal note, one of the reasons I feel strongly about this is because I am separated from DD's dad. I am incredibly grateful that I earn enough to be financially independent, stay in the house, and make a nice life for DD. This has made our break up so much easier, and has also enabled her dad and I to have an amicable co-parenting relationship, because it is based on equality.

I don't think the stress put on men to work while their partners be primary carer is having their cake and eating it though. I am very happy forsaking some money for these precious moments with my child. I would fight anyone to the death who said I couldn't have it, or that it was discrtinatory to men!

Maybe it is anout individual choice - but how many people in the world, male or female, actually enjoy that? Not very many. Most of us have to juggle trade offs. That's not to say things can't be inproved, but that everyone should have the right to choose how they live their lives without any costs to go with the benefits? There are not enough resorces in the world to deliver that.

I am not judging anyones individual choice either. Just trying to be pragmatic and progressive without being outrageously idealistic.

My background is that I am from a disadvantaged background. Came to academia late - am doing my masters and planning my PhD on fresh perspectives that will hopefully improve justice for rape victims on a global scale.

I so agree with HighonDieseland Gasoline.

There was another thread, a while back, which ended up exploring some of the reasons behind the "choice" to leave work after children. A big part of that "choice" was that work wouldn't cover the cost of childcare. So the lowest-earning parent (usually the female) gave up paid employment and covered the childcare instead.

There were other reasons, but it was noticeable how often it was the woman, and the lowest-earner, who gave up work.

There is so clearly a structural element to this debate.

And I always want to say to women who are thinking of giving up work on the grounds that their wages will barely/not even cover the cost of childcare "Look forward ten years - It may not be financially optimal right now but it will pay off. You won't have taken the huge break, you'll be earning more and you'll have financial independence should anything happen."

And I think it is well beyond time for us as a society to take this seriously and change work patterns; taking women back after a career break, taking fatherhood seriously and changing work patterns.

Oddly enough, I think that is only going to happen if society takes child-rearing seriously, as a really important job, rather than just giving it lip service.

A better way would be to introduce free distance learning credits for mothers, sah or not.

Free distance learning credits would be great, but you also need a job market which takes people seriously when they have had a career break, or spent a spell in part time work. Unfortunately this will not happen unless child-rearing starts having an impact on men's careers too.

I agree with cherryblossoms, this is not about downgrading child-rearing, or saying that everyone has to work FT, it's about taking child-rearing seriously as something that is done by men and women.

"you also need a job market which takes people seriously when they have had a career break, or spent a spell in part time work."

I agree but not sure about this not happening "unless child-rearing starts having an impact on men's careers too."

Government incentives could have a huge impact on this.

Monkeytrousers, that could well be part of the solution, but people making apppointments are always going to want hire the person they think is best for the job. In my area, that is usually somebody in their late 20s or early 30s, who has been full time their whole working lives.

I can imagine huge resistance to affirmative action in favour of people who'd taken time out or worked p/t.

There is a perception - totaly bollocks of course - that you can only do our job full time.

Only when men start to make the kind of compromises that women do will the penny drop.

No, I don't mean affirmative action.

" Only when men start to make the kind of compromises that women do will the penny drop"

I know this was the big dream back in the 70s when everyone thought we were all 100% malliable by culture. Men are taking on much more childcare responsibilites than ever before in previous generations, basically becasue their roles were just as prescribed than womens. But I think we do have to give up the idea that we can force men to do anymore than they want - just as we can't force women. We have to find a compromise that works for both men and women, and one that doesn't bend them out of shape individually or as a gender. There are limits to malliblity, there is also lots of wriggle room, but if part of this big idea is to wait for men to suddenly become women and women become men, we will be waiting forever.

Well, I think this is where we have to agree to disagree, because I don't believe that men are one way, and women another way.

I never said that. In some ways they are very similar, in others the differences - on average - are marked, and they are all around parenting. That's not an opinion. Its an empirically observed and measured fact.

Sorry, didn't mean to misinterpret you!

I think there is evidence of similarity and difference. But even if all the evidence seemed to show that men were more ambitious and career-driven, and women more nurturing, I'm not sure whether I would believe it. All scientific enquiry is a product of its time and place: the people doing the observing and measuring live in society, and are influenced by its norms. Unfortunately, we live in a deeply sexist society, so it not surprising that science comes to some conclusions which defend the current (sexist) division of labour.

This is all IMO of course, I respect yours and don't expect you to agree with me!

I don't consider myself career minded but am shocked how much having a baby has affected my prospects. I took 10 months maternity leave and in that time was excluded from planning new work projects etc. I came back to my job for a year and was then made redundant - because I hadn't contributed to any new developments!!!! I feel resentful at the lack of part time opportunities at a senior level, and I am also sure my employer thought I'd drop another one any time soon (rightly as it turns out) and thought it best to get rid of me. I have since applied for lower part time posts and been told I am hopelessly overqualified!! So it's full time and then some or nothing, and with a growing bump I will soon be unemployable because despite legislation I am not kidding myself that anyone will give me a job when I turn up to interviews visibly pregnant.
I certainly did not anticipate to be forced into a stay at home mum status when I had my first baby (after 8 years of fertility problems, so no regrets of course).
Bit of a rant, sorry, but I feel really cross about this

No need to apologise. Just clarifying

Actually, the evidence is much more compex than men are active/women passive and nutruring. And much more interesting for it.

Science is a product of its time and place; but it is also the product of the past - endlessly falsified. No one is asserting that sceijce is 100% onjective, but it is certainly the most objctive we can get, and if that best is not enough, what does it say for the rest?

I dunno if your saying the scientific method is not to be trusted. That is actually factored into it; it's called skepticism and its how it progresses - or one of the ways.

And really, the fact is, todays science catagorocally does not reinforce or defend the current (sexist) division of labour. If only feminists would read some of it, they might see this.

Thank you to those who have provided interesting links - it's certainly an interesting debate.

ROFL at stillstanding, who apparently 'got bored' looking for any evidence to back up her arguments!

I don't think it's at all helpful to think in terms of 'getting the upper hand' or 'getting a better deal'. Surely in the 21st century, we can accept that mothers and fathers are equally capable of caring for children (and also working!). I married my partner as an equal. We are both equally well qualified, equally successful in our professions - and equal in our desire to have a family.

Women should, of course, be paid the same rate for the same job as a man - and it's illegal for that not to happen.

However, it's important to separate the issue of discrimination from the issue of choice. Many women choose to take a year off, ie, extended maternity leave, rather than just the statutory. They choose to cut down their hours. Some choose to give up work altogether. If you make that choice, it's disingenuous to then complain about loss of earnings, or career progression, or pension pot.

"Brett, I think if a man wanted to take time off when the kids are sick or be the one who has a year off after the birth, people would say he wanted to have his cake and eat it."

Why should a man not take time off to look after his kids? This is exactly the sort of viewpoint that needs to be challenged for us to achieve equality.

I agree with violet above, I just put it far less well

In general Monkey I think feminism is actually about having and allowing choices.

Violethill, I "got bored" of typing in all the links for the overwhelming amount of evidence that I did find. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You say that "Surely in the 21st century, we can accept that mothers and fathers are equally capable of caring for children (and also working!)" and I certainly do accept that but society does not appear to and that is the issue (one of the many).

I also agree that there is a distinction between discrimination and choice but you cannot ignore the impact that the one will have on the other. The discrimination against women - mothers in particular - will seriously impact the choices she and her partner will make.

I am quite prepared to accept the loss of earnings etc for the time I take off for maternity leave or reduced hours. What is not acceptable is that the loss is disproportionate to the time taken off/reduced hours. No choice in that, just plain discrimination.