Why are gender roles viewed negatively?

[reddragon7]

I read and see so many threads and real life examples, where men and women feel the need to be “equal.” The man about to become a father, refuses to become the main earner, even when he has the means, and insists that his wife also work and contribute financially. Doesn’t this seem imbalanced to anyone, and that society is being brainwashed to accept this as the norm.

I have nothing against a woman wishing to work post-children, however, I don’t understand why society and some men put pressure on their wives to work, if she would rather stay home with the children. This has now become and expectation. If a woman is contributing financially, it is never really 50/50, as she is also doing most of the domestic work.

People condemn gender roles as though they are ancient, but seem to forget that, biologically and psychologically, women are naturally better caregivers to children. They are the ones pregnant, produce all these hormones, and better equipped to raise a child than a man. Of course, there are exceptions, but as a general fact, people seem to ignore this.

In view of all this, I believe more men should offer to be financial providers, giving women the option to not work after children, as childcare costs aren’t exactly saving them much anyway. Otherwise, it feels we are moving away from our gender roles, which may actually be more helpful in a marriage, than people make out.

Agree completely. Families should be supported / have choice for one parent to stay at home up to age of 3. The fight for equality in the workplace whilst valid has unfortunately left a lot of parents (mostly mothers) in a position of working, parenting cleaning etc so doing the role of sahm whilst holding down a job.

If a woman ditched her job to become a SAHM though, how easy do you think it is for her to pick up the financial responsibility for the family should her husband become incapacitated?

after even a few years out it can be very difficult to get back into the workplace. It is even harder to get back at the level you were, it nearly always involves a step back initially.

why aren’t men entitled to SAH if they choose? Why do women get the choice but men don’t?

personally I think gender roles are regressive and women enforcing them are putting our sex back in the kitchen and allowing men to continue to abdicate home responsibilities. Then women complain about “deadbeat dads”- when they themselves have set up the gender roles where the man has little to do with the kids as his role is earning money.

It seems to make more sense, logically. I’m not saying that’s why they’re “there,” simply for that. But if a couple decide to marry and raise a family, surely there’s nothing wrong with taking on certain roles.

More often than not, women cater to their children more than their husband, and children also crave and bond more with them in their early years. There’s nothing wrong with this.

So many women complain how men aren’t as committed to childcare and domestics consistently, so it’s largely picked up by the woman. Despite this, why is the woman ALSO expected to contribute financially. So my argument is, women should be entitled to have the choice to work or not, without feeling the pressure of financial burden AS WELL. This is ruling out exceptions like husband being ill, redundant etc.

This is why I would still advocate education so a woman still has something as a back-up, which would make it easier for her to transition back into work etc.

Women get the choice for simple reasons, they are the ones who carried the baby and gave birth. Men don’t go through the process of pregnancy and childbirth, do they.

Advocating gender roles doesn’t mean ditching the other completely. In times of need, a woman would still help her husband financially. And a man, still help his wife domestically.
Just seems fairer imo, for a mother to be free of financial expectations, should she wish to be.

That does happen in a lot of families though if the couple can afford it.

Firstly the tax system means you take home more if you both earn. I actually think retrospectively that working 50:50 would be better.

There is nothing magic about being female, it is about spending time with the children to bond. A man looking after children can develop just as secure attachment, it is just that the early studies were carried out looking at mothers because society dictated that they were the ones expected to be at home (and available for research studies). Attachment seems to work on a positive feedback loop with oxytocin being released which then encourages the person to spend more time with the child.

If the father takes more responsibility for caregiving he might realise that it isn't always possible to have a spotless house, gleaming, smiley children and a meal on the table when the wife gets home from work.

In the long term giving up paid roles makes it much harder to then earn a higher wage again, even with qualifications. It means the woman might spend 10-15 years out of the work market, their qualifications are out of date and when the children no longer need her at home she doesn't have the confidence or earning power she once did. 15 years is a long time to be out of the workforce. 15 years ago we barely had smartphones for example, think about the numerous developments in many areas since then. You can't just jump back in at the level you left.

This is even before you consider what happens if they separate. Worst case, an unmarried mother might find that she has no claim on the house, being teens the father is happy to have them 50:50 so no maintenance, she has to find any job she can to support herself and her dc 50%.

Having said that I wouldn't judge a family who felt a 50:50 split did not work for them.

I say 10-15 years because the primary years are the hardest to work around in terms of childcare and holding down a professional job.

I agree with you OP. For my own family, I have always believed in the more traditional roles of the man going out to work to provide for his family and the woman being at home with the children. It was also the same for me growing up, my mum was always around.

What is disappointing is how society seem to think that raising children instead of having a career means you are not successful or haven't done anything with your life - as if it all equates to money and status. Family life is way more important to me.

It’s not as easy as having education as a back up. there are plenty of degree educated women struggling to get back into work after years out. Education can be a hindrance in some cases, as you’re overqualified for entry level, but won’t be considered for higher levels due to the cv gap.

a mother can never plan to “be free of financial expectations”. Chances are at some point she will have to work- ni contributions stop once children are 12. So no pension, no wage, she’s leaving herself and her kids very vulnerable if she’s one of the 50% who’s marriages breakdown.

i don’t get why you’d risk that.

men don’t go through pregnancy and childbirth, no. But why should they be expected to financially support someone for years just because that person did. And like I said, I think the splitting of roles along gender lines is how we are ending up with uninvolved and deadbeat dads. If we don’t expect them to co parent while married, why would they co parent after a divorce.

OP women 'bond' with the children because they usually end up doing most of the caregiving. There is nothing innate that relates a vagina to being better at this. It would be acceptable to me if you said one parent should take on more of this role rather than using childcare but the fact that you believe it's just 'logical' that women are better at care is total and utter bullshit.

expectation for women, from both men and society, to work and contribute financially AS WELL AS being a mother. Simply because most of the time, more of the childcare and domestic work falls on women. They should have the CHOICE, they should be allowed to be a full time mum if they wish
They DO have a choice, as long as the family unit can afford it and both people in the relationship are on board with a working parent/SAHP arrangement.

This sounds like what you're pushing for is for women to be able to have a child and then expect to say "we can afford it so I should be able to stay at home" and the man is unreasonable for not wanting to carry the family financially. It doesn't sound like a particularly fair relationship or dynamic to be honest. It should be a discussion for BOTH parents about the roles they're happy with.

Though again, why is the solution to men not doing their fair share in the home for women to give up work if she's fed up with doing all the domestic work as well?

I suspect that whilst you have strong gender roles the female roles will always be disparaged. Your choice - keep them gender separate or get respect and open them up to men

Software coders got respect only when men moved in - women invented coding and until the late 60s dominated the profession

Further I'll disagree with the use or "natural" to justify the roles. We are human - we wear clothes , we eat our food cooked, many chose a vegetarian diet for ethical reasons - we reject many "natural" ways of living

You have demanded evidence for something a platter wrote, so I’d like to see your scientific source for this claim, please @reddragon7…

Deny it as much as you want, but women are naturally better caregivers

Poster, not platter.

Deny it as much as you want, but women are naturally better caregivers

Pah!!
Or are they socialised into this role?

There is no evidence that women are better care givers

In fact given the heavy socialisation it's striking how many women are clearly not only not natural caregivers but also unable to be trained to be caregivers

And that word natural again
If humans had always taken the status quo as natural and so right we would still be living like bonobos

I’m sorry, but I do think it’s pretty miraculous how women grow a whole life inside of them, and bear and birth children. It’s as though raising them is not seen as high a value as having a successful career.

Of course, I would agree that men should also be encouraged to spend more time with their children and bond. I’m referring to the fact that many women may like to take on his role, and financially rely on their husband. I think this is very fair.

If a woman is concerned about losing her work skills, even whilst at home, I would advise keeping up with courses online that may help. I am not saying NEVER return to work should she wish.

If a woman is contributing financially, it is never really 50/50, as she is also doing most of the domestic work.

That woman is mug then isn't she, don't be that woman.

But surely op since the woman grew the baby the man should take over reading the child

Makes as much sense

Exactly!!!!

If a woman is concerned about losing her work skills, even whilst at home, I would advise keeping up with courses online that may help. I am not saying NEVER return to work should she wish.

You do realise that it's not that easy to just return to a job if you've taken years out? There are a huge number of roles where this just isn't possible and no amount of online courses will help.

It’s funny how all the females of the species in the animal kingdom are somehow socialised into child rearing as well. It’s men who need to be actively socialised into parenting usually and on the whole that seems to be a long and arduous task. Just read any thread on here.
The first few months of a baby’s life are absolutely crucial for their development - language and cognitive and in their understanding of relationships. They’re not a ‘blob’ that any old adult can keep an eye on occasionally.
Research has shown that women are still doing more of the domestic chores on top of more work and more child rearing and yet it’s somehow their fault! It’s mainly women who sacrifice their careers out of choice to be with their children (I wouldn’t have swapped my time with my babies for anything) and their time is not recognised or valued in the divorce courts, in pensions or in benefits. Loving effective child rearing and caring for others is a crucial in our society and should be valued as such, not just working for money.

There’s a rule in our house that unless it requires a penis or a vagina specifically it’s anyone’s job.

It’s funny how all the females of the species in the animal kingdom are somehow socialised into child rearing as well.
Thankfully humans have evolved meaning both mum and dad are capable of caring for their young.....

It’s men who need to be actively socialised into parenting usually and on the whole that seems to be a long and arduous task. Just read any thread on here.

Men are perfectly capable of parenting. Those of us with partners who are equal parents tend not to start threads moaning about them so you really shouldn't treat MN as representative of society as a whole.

The first few months of a baby’s life are absolutely crucial for their development - language and cognitive and in their understanding of relationships. They’re not a ‘blob’ that any old adult can keep an eye on occasionally.

But both mum and dad are capable of looking after their children. Other than breastfeeding, there's nothing that can't be fine by either mum or dad 🤷🏼‍♀️

Research has shown that women are still doing more of the domestic chores on top of more work and more child rearing and yet it’s somehow their fault!
Who is blaming women for this??

It’s mainly women who sacrifice their careers out of choice to be with their children
Sometime it's a choice that isn't a choice .... women still face huge barriers in the labour market.
However, if families want to make the choice to have one parent stay at home then it should be an arrangement agreed to by both parents. Nobody has an automatic right to be financially supported by their partner.

(I wouldn’t have swapped my time with my babies for anything) and their time is not recognised or valued in the divorce courts, in pensions or in benefits. Loving effective child rearing and caring for others is a crucial in our society and should be valued as such, not just working for money.

I agree that caring responsibilities are undervalued in society and we know that it's women who take on the bulk of this responsibility and there's a bigger debate to be had around the salaries of these roles and how we get more men involved.

There are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom where both parents raise offspring equally.

humans are very much a unique species though, most animals only actively rear their offspring until they’re weaned, and before sexual maturity.

humans generally don’t kick their kids out to be independent as soon as they’re weaned from the breast so they can concentrate on the next one, so it’s not comparable at all.

male animals don’t go out to work and provide financially for a family either. Many aren’t even monogamous.

would you say single dads/gay couples are incapable of nurturing and raising children, because it isn’t “natural”?

actually do you think homosexuality is “unnatural”?