"Working for nothing"

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Probably just me.... but does anyone else get annoyed when a woman in a partnership says 'after I've paid for the childcare there's nothing left out of my wages'? The implication being that childcare is the woman's sole responsibility and that, if she doesn't stay home to do it herself, the cost of hiring someone else to look after the children is entirely hers... even if there is a wage-earning second parent. The conversation then goes on to something like....'I'd be better off if I stopped work'...or ... 'It's hardly worth me going out to work'. As if her contribution is totally negated and her job worthless.

More accurate to say that paying for child care reduces the household income in total. Shared cost, shared responsibility. But no-one ever phrases it that way. Wonder why.

I know Annie. People seem to forget that we need children to keep society going and to fund all our pensions in future years. Perhaps we should tell them that they should all commit suicide if they haven't managed to save enough in their pension pot as you shouldn't retire unless you can afford it

Many people just don't seem to get the point that this dilemma just doesn't seem to affect the vast majority of men. You can bet your mortgage on the fact that if it did a much fairer solution would be in place by now. Even under the nuclear family model it wouldn't be half as bad if it was the norm for one person to stay at home and look after the DC if it really was 50/50 whether that would be mum or dad.

I just think it would be a far nicer society (and a more efficient, economically successful one) if people were in roles that they best fitted. Some people are bloody brilliant at being around kids. Some people are bloody brilliant at teaching/making money/fixing things. Does it not make more sense for the people who are actually good at doing child-related stuff to do that while the ones who are good at fixing stuff actually fixed stuff? We are losing a huge amount of talented women from the workforce because their ambitions and skills are chopped off at the knees once they have children. Sorry - I am aware I am speaking to the converted here.

yes, but that's just a small part of the battle because women are penalized in the workplace for having the potential to get pregnant. Even though it's illegal not to hire women because they're women companies do it all the time, and we know this because the figures show it (in the Equality illusion). They can always find a premise not to hire her.
ANd this is all before a woman even does get pregnant.

When she does get pregnant it's all downhill from there. Even if she returns to work ASAP, she may have been passed over for promotion, she will not be asked to go on business trips (and she would probably refuse anyway if she was breastfeeding)

So even if a woman is lucky enough to have decent-ish bloke around to take on the childcare (remember that LOTS of fathers abandon their partners when they're pregnant) she is still going to be at a huge disadvantage compared to any man in the workplace.

In other words this idea that men taking on the childcare is the route to equality is a dead end. Many many mothers don't want anything to do with the fathers of their children because they're abusive shits, so where does this leave them?

Sunshine, Yes, policies should be created as bold, active initiatives as opposed to passive policies which can and often result in perverse results and behaivours. The 50% of childcare would make such a difference both in terms of finances, but also in terms of what parental responsibility actually consists of.

I am also of the opinion that the nuclear family set-up doesn't help resolve the problem,and that different structures were normalised and acceptable, different resolutions would be possible (loving the idea of a group of single mama's helping each other out, sadly I don't have that sort of network close to me - that I know of!). And yes at the risk of 'over agreeing' an amazing amount of talent is lost as people end up doing not what they are best at, but doint instead what overall appears to be the best compromise for the moment.

Sakura, whilst I don't disgree that women are penalised both for the potential to get pregnant and post children, I don't think I agree with your conclusions (if I have understood them correctly). Just because there is a way to go before true equality is achieved, is not a reason to stop or assume
any changes made are a dead end. Whilst there is still discrimination, policiy changes on both on national and organisational levels, (for example equal opportunity policies implemented) means that this is not on same scale as it was 40 years ago, when my mother was asked to give up her job when she became pregnant. It also means that the challenges facing women in employment are now different as well.

I think we need to be carefully about saying once a woman gets pregnant it is all 'downhill' from there, becuase that genuinely does not have to be the case - life is more ambigious than that.

It is abolutely possible to manage a succesful career post children.
It is too simplistic to say that women will not get invited on business trips, however, if you have been landed with both managing a job and all the domestic/childcare at home it can be serious challenge (which can lead you to being overlooked), which means women working in business need to be very aware of what proactive action they can take to help them manage these sort of situations.

I still go on business trips, but travel only stay overnight 20% of the time now for example.You can also manage short business trips breastfeeding with the help of pump. Again the breastfeeding stage is a relatively short time span. I leave client site early to get home for 'bedtime hour' and work again after the kids go to sleep and travel early in the morning to clients. I have been promoted twice since having my first child. There are lots of things that are possible. It is just that that men typically do not have to twist themselves into the same knots to achieve the same results.

Also, many women in organisations proactively go for promotion before their maternity leave - there many informal ways that these sort of challenges can be taken on. Not all will be succesful, but that is not a reason for not trying. When we talk about women being disadvantaged in the workplace, we have two choices. We can critique from the sidelines,or we can step in to change things. Solutions will be imperfect and difficult but that does not make them irrelvant. We need to think about why we would want to discourage women from entering the work place (which is a little how your
post reads - but this may not have been your intention).

If you say that men taking on childcare is a 'dead end' - what do you think would be a better solution? I have an abusive ex, which one -of many reasons- is why it is really important that I can support myself and my kids, and also why I think sunshine's 50% of childcare policy is pretty inspired.

Feminism has many fights on many fronts, so even if this is just a small part of the battle, so what ? It is still pretty fundamental to our daily lives.

Snowmama - great post.

When you and sunshine are talking about 50% of childcare costs being included in maintainance - I guess that would need to be kind of an allowance (like a notional amount calculated in for food, clothes, housing etc? not something like in WTC where it is based on actual costs incurred) - So a 100% non-resident parent would have to pay 50% of notional childcare costs to enable the parent with residency to work FT? Or some lower proportion based on the actual split of days they each have? Then is is up to them whether they do work FT, PT or just keep the money and 'do the childcare themselves'. Is that what you mean? (I think that would be more workable and make more sense than the parent without residency paying 50% of actual childcare, since they are no longer in a financial partnership together)

Sakura - yes of course I think policies on childcare should enable women to leave abusive shits, without being tied into poverty unable to work/forced to work to the detriment of their children. But on the other hand the majority of people are not abusive shits, so policy should not be designed with this assumption alone.

Surely part of the progress we seek is for fewer women to have children with abusive shits, but with decent human beings if they want to, for parenthood to be an equal partnership, for all children to have a decent childhood, and for women not to have to give up their chances of professional fulfillment and financial security in order to do that....part of that depends on the choices women make (and the capacity they have to make those choices) before they have children - when they are at school and uni, choosing careers and choosing sexual partners, and who to have children with.

Thanks Himalaya - feel shy now!

Good question. My understanding was actually now we have the CSA calculation (which changes depending on the number of days the NRP has the childrent) - which actually covers a proportionexpenses to raise the kids -shoes, clothes, accomodation etc.

I saw the childcare allowance as a split of the of the childcare bill over and above that CSA amount. So imagine it was £200 per week for childcare. If I was a SAHP, I would get 0% of childcare allowance. If I worked PT (half the week) I would recieve £50 (50% of £100) and if I worked FT, I would receive £100 (50% of £200). The reason why I would argue for the NRP resident to pay 50% of childcare regardless of days spent with them is that otherwise, they in effect get free full time childcare for their children.

Now possibly, that would be dependent on the NRP's financial situation - and may be means tested somehow. Now Sunshine may completely correct me on this - as this is my very (shallow ) interpretation.

No correction snowmama - that's how I saw it too.

@snowmama "Sakura, whilst I don't disgree that women are penalised both for the potential to get pregnant and post children, I don't think I agree with your conclusions (if I have understood them correctly). Just because there is a way to go before true equality is achieved, is not a reason to stop or assume
any changes made are a dead end."
No I agree with you there. It's always worth fighting the good fight ... I'm just worried that women will be too invested in the outcomes. The changes will be minimal. Men will simply work out other ways of doing one over on us. That's way the pay gap is so enormous fourty years after the feminist revolution.

@HImalaya "But on the other hand the majority of people are not abusive shits, so policy should not be designed with this assumption alone. "
HAHAHAHAHA... ah youth is beautiful.
Considering men's aggregate behaviour (you only have to look at the way they treat prostituted women, child sexual abuse, battery, not to mention the two murders a week of women, plus the fact that DV begins or increases when a woman is pregnant for examples) I think we should all assume that men are abusive shits unless they demonstrate otherwise. If men want a pornified rape culture where women's status is low by definition of the porn, then they must prove that they are decent human beings. Guilty until proven innocent.

Sakura, Yes, it is always worth fighing the good fight! I actually think that women should be over-invested in outcomes. If you don't try to reach as far as possible and risk failure, you cannot achieve. If we believe that the only change possible is minimal - that is exactly what the result will be.

There is evidence (was hoping to find some links - but rushing so haven't got any 'proof' so to speak) that actually that some of the gender pay gap is also due to women dropping to part time work and taking lower pay jobs in order to be able to manage childcare on behalf the family. Another reason may be taking 'time out from a career' to manage childcare, so it is not quite as simple as saying you won't get paid equivalently in a job (though that can happen as well -lots of larger organisations have systems and performanance management systems in place in an attempt to counter this.). Another issue is women simply don't ask for pay rises whereas men will.

For example, if you get a graduate job, progress at an average/standard grade to a senior grade as a woman, which is possible and you will be paid well. The challenge is that complexities that (typically) women have to deal with in life, interfere with that standard linear progression resulting in lower pay.

Also, in your response to Himalaya, I really don't think we should engineer policies for 'failure'. By that, I mean if you work on the assumption that all men are abusive unless proved otherwise and developed national and organisational policies with this principle, you would end up with some
seriously perverse results in terms of people's behaivour.

Patriarchy is a system that allows men to behave badly, and rewards them for doing so (for example, prioritising themselves, objectification women etc etc). I suspect all humans will behave badly if they are given remit and license to. What is actually required is to change behaivours rather than responding as if men are intrinsically bad/abusive etc. So my personal position would be to develop policies that drive fairer behaivour, and driving a societal narrative that demonstrates that it is everyone's overall good to do so and because the alternative is considered unacceptable in society.

Sakuara - I admit I haven't read the whole thread but I find your last paragraph offensive.

"All men are abusive shits".

"guilty until proven otherwise".

I suppose I should have just drowned my two boys at birth then.

"I suspect all humans will behave badly if they are given remit and license to. "

I suspect women would not. Well I only have FACTS to go on, of course... FACTS that show women are nothing like men at all. They don't rape or sexually abuse their children like men do.. which is shocking when you see how much time women spend with children compared to men

WOrldwide, men barely spend any time with kids at all compared to women and yet the SMALL amount of time they do get with children, they spend sexually abusing them or killing them. The Catholics set up an entire religion specifically so they could get one over on women and abuse their children in secret and then cover their tracks.
THe good fathers are really the odd ones out here, the ones that are few and far between.

I suspect that women are entirely different to men and that the fact that women are desperately poor as a group (compared to men) and that they have enormous responsibilities for children and the elderly (men's care-taking responsibilities are negligible by comparison), and that most of them are suffering from PTSD from all their childhood sexual abuse and rapes etc and yet they STILL manage to do the right thing by their kids and by other people tells me that faith in women is all we've got.

"you would end up with some
seriously perverse results in terms of people's behaivour."

Nope, women giving men the benefit of the doubt for thousands of years has resulted in some seriously peverse behavior (on the part of men)

There are some examples of men carrying out some seriously peverse behaviour a click of a button away. I have just seen some sick shit while I was searching for something else.
Try google.

And they're getting worse. Violence against women and girls is increasing. We have NO TIME left to KEEP giving men the benefit of the doubt when they have done nothing to deserve it. QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

oh stop misquoting me thaigreencurry

I actually said: "Many many mothers don't want anything to do with the fathers of their children because they're abusive shits"

Can you see the difference between your statement: "all men are abusive shits" and my statement

That isn't actually what you said.

err.. yes it is, see upthread. THere's a record

Mon 23-May-11 01:59:10
In other words this idea that men taking on the childcare is the route to equality is a dead end. Many many mothers don't want anything to do with the fathers of their children because they're abusive shits, so where does this leave them?

Sakura I didn't interpet your post as saying "all men are abusive shits", but I think you make a really good point that I hadn't considered before.

Although I have of course realised that men spend relatively little time with their children, I had never really correlated that with comparing levels of abuse by gender. You're right. It's shocking.

I think it's important to point out here that I don't believe all men are abusive. I know several very nice, truly decent men (who are also feminists incidentally, even if they wouldn't necessarily call themselves so). I am also inordinately fond of my DS . However, I do believe that abusive and sexist behaviour in our society is rampant.

Women's Aid are often quoted for their figure of 1 in 4 women in a relationship will experience domestic abuse. I believe this figure is based on reported abuse. When you remember that the vast majority of women never report, and that for every reported assault there may be 3 or 4 that are unreported, you realise that 1 in 2 may ba a more accurate figure. That's HALF the population!

Then start thinking about behaviours that are not generally considered abusive, but IMO are sexist - e.g. women being left to do the vast majority of the housework and childcare even if they too hold down a full-time job. That probably accounts for another 1 in 4.

So maybe only 25% of men truly believe in equality????

Sakura and Sunshine, I don't disagree with the with the figures (I suspect less than 25% of men have the motivation to believe in equality - and truly believe it). However, where I suspect we part company a little, is our interpretation of why.

I do not believe that women are fundamantally different from men in response to power and behaivour. Why, because as I have said on other threads my observation of the life in Africa and particularly the development aid sector is that (white) women with power do (but not always) use that power in an oppressive manner - including sick shit. Therefore my conclusion could be all white people are inherently racist and oppressive, but actually it is not.

My belief is that if you implement a system that gives anyone a disproportionate amount of power, and the licence to behave badly the (vast?) majority of that group will, because they can and they are not being given any motivation or criticism to stop.

So I am not giving men the benefit of doubt in the sense of ('oh he is a man he can't help it' ), I am saying systemically and structurally men are being given license to behave badly and often take it. I still suspect if you gave exactly the same license to women they would also take it( which is a moot point as it wil never happen).

Thank you sunshine

Getting lots of and in the feminist topic just means you've said something right i.e something OUTSIDE the mainstream line of thought.. that's what feminism is.

So yes, back on topic, there ARE nice men, of course. HOWEVER.. all men benefit from male privilege. ALL men without exception.
And the fact that the "nice" men are generally not doing anything to stop the abuse, rape and violence of their group (men) against women tells me that they like their privilege a bit too much, and that they don't actually see women as human.

If men-as-a-group stopped dehumanizing women, the regime wouldn't last half a day.

I have a son, a sweet little boy... but I'm not naive enough to believe that my feminist influence can counteract patriarchal brainwashing! That really would be naive. Do you know that nowadays boys from the age of 12 watch porn and lots of rapes are carried out by 16 year olds.
None of this has anything to do with how their mothers raised them and everything to do with the proliferation of violent media, specifically porn sexualizing violence against women: rape and murder of women is sexy. That's what our media teaches boys.

And then politicians and companies pretend they're surprised when boys and men actually go ahead and re-enact the sexy rape and murder scenes they've watched on the silver screen.

All we can do as mothers is try our best, but if the government (i.e men) wanted to outlaw porn and violence on the TV, they could do so.
They choose not to because all the women and children that are killed every week, by men, aren't as important as men's orgasms. That's what our boys are learning.

snowmama I don't necessarily disagree with you (sorry for appalling grammar there).

I don't believe any of what I've written suggests that there is something inherent in men that forces them to behave in this way. There's no 'aggression' gene or anything. It is social norms and values that are responsible IMO.

"(white) women with power do (but not always) use that power in an oppressive manner - including sick shit"

White women are still operating within a patriarchal system of white male supremacy. Men require female handmaidens in order for the system to remain in place. THese are the underlings, the women who peck at each other or at those further down the white male supremist hierarchy, especially other women , in order to appease and please the males above them, and also to make themselves feel better about being women in a patriarchy.

This is a handy tactic because it also washes men's hands clean. They get women to do the dirty work for them but that work keeps the hierarchical system that men invented firmly in place.

Just as women in CHina were blamed for foot binding because it was the mothers and aunts who actually bound girls' feet.... male historians forgot to mention that men required brides with bound feet, and they also forgot to mention that women were so traumatized themselves from being maltreated (PTSD) that they couldn't see straight.

It's not right, and I wish women wouldn't do it, but they've internalized the misogyny meted out onto them.

Perhaps if men spent more time with their children they'd be less inclined to act like shits towards them.

I truly believe that instead of making this about men vs women, how differently we behave, let's instead look at the different expectations piled on each gender by society, practically from birth. Despite my best efforts, my 5yo DD has very clear idea on what are 'boy' things and 'girl' things - clothes, toys, hairstyles, colours.

Stop treating boys and girls so differently, stop treating men and women differently, eliminate ways in which gender differences are brought into relief. I'm including differences that appear to help women, like paid maternity leave which men don't get. Stop expecting and encouraging such differences, and maybe, just maybe, you'd stop seeing the differences.

Sakura will no doubt think I'm hopelessly naive. But rather than then hopelessly jaded, IMO.

sakura I'm a little nervous about posting this next bit as without the ability to see me and hear my tone of voice. I'm a bit worried you might think I'm being passive aggressive or sarcastic. I'm not. This is genuine.

You said: "I have a son, a sweet little boy... but I'm not naive enough to believe that my feminist influence can counteract patriarchal brainwashing". Do you really believe that? How do you deal with it? I can understand everything you've said and believe it on an intellectual level, but emotionally I just cannot compute that my DS will grow up to be part of the problem. I just cannot. Maybe I am naive but I am clinging to the belief that my parenting will raise a son who respects women and will challenge inequality when he encounters it, the same way I will challenge racism when I encounter it even though I am not a member of a racial equality lobby. I can't place the responsibility for over-turning millennia of oppression solely on my son's shoulders, just as I am unwilling to take sole responsibility for stamping out racism. I consider it enough to challenge it when I see it. Is that not enough?

How do you make your peace with this dichotomy between intellectual beliefs and personal experience?

Bonsoir - has it ever occurred to you that people have thought long and hard about their decisions and are trying to do what's best for their children and the family as a whole.

Recently I've been looking at other jobs, buying businesses, starting up my own business or franchise and other ways of working, doing somerthing mroe creative. I've thought about little else for the last year and a half in fact and weighed up the pros and cons, and while I still looking for something which is fewer hours, actually it's made me realise what I'm doing now isn't too bad in the current climate.

Plus the fact what kids need more than anything (apart from love) is stability. Neither DH nor I would chop and change things at the drop of a hat without thinking about the family first. Of course 'fun' is important but life doesn't have to be one long rollercoaster of excitement to be fun. In fact I think boring is fun. Give me a boring safe existence any time, we aren't in constant fear of our lives, we aren't worried about our next meal or whether our children will survive infancy.

There are plenty of places where those things are constant worries for people. Frankly I don't want that kind of excitement.

Sunshine, I think Insomia is responding to Bonsoir further upthread.

Sakura - I think we are closer in agreement than I initially thought. I read your initial comments as natural/inherent observations about men.

I do believe that changes in policies (which are implemented fully), parenting, role modelling , stopping treating people differently etc can and do change society including what is acceptable behaivour and attitudes. Exactly as Annie describes.

Men also have a responsibility to step up to the play too, in rejecting violent manifestations of masculinity.

They are incremental changes, and there will be challenges. However, I think they are and have been possible. If I didn't, then seriously, I would not have the will to live...

Yes snowmama, you and I are in closer agreement than, say, ANnie and I

"How do you make your peace with this dichotomy between intellectual beliefs and personal experience?"

FIrst of all, it is neither intellectual beliefs nor personal experience which has led me to this point. It is the cold hard facts, the way that the law and medicine are steeped in misogyny and have been set up to keep women down, the way that women are treated in literature in the arts, the rape and murder of women and children that goes on every single day in so-called progressive countries such as the UK etc etc... and that's before I even get to the fucked up things that are going on elsewhere.
So.. the facts are that women's status in the UK is dire and this is exemplified by the pornified culture... we are treated as fuckholes and I know this because of the way our politicians talk about women and the liberal democrat's "woo hooo prostitution is just work like any other, woohoo Hooters is okay for children etc etc" They're not even keeping the fact they despise women a SECRET. At least 100 years ago men kept it all under wraps.

MOving on...

Yes, I believe men are socialized into their role as oppressors of females, I personally don't believe the sickness that belongs to men is innate (although some feminists do). If I believed that I would just pack up and go home right now.

So you have to attack the root, which is the political institutions, the system itself... you have to change policies... you have to get rid of the entire sex industry... Mothers... ah mothers.. mothers must be treated with respect, once and for all, a world where pregnant women are not made into abuse porn fetishes for men's orgasms, or where society believes in valuing pregnancy and child-bearing etc....

WHen the root is attacked (i.e when women have won this damn battle) then yes, men will be different. Women will then have the freedom to be able to socialize our sons the way we want.

Until then, there are no good men and bad men, there are just men who ALL benefit from male privilege and this system that oppresses ALL women which we call patriarchy. Men can help..yes, I know of a man who has set up an anti-porn website (Anti-porn men)... these sort of men are helpful, yes, and even good.. but because they too benefit from male privilege that they can't even see.