Equality at home - Can this really be achieved?

[marga73]

There is an issue I've been wanting to discuss for a long time. It's the issue of equality inside the house.

Even though women now work and are able to gain respectable positions in the workplace, and we can say that some level of equality has been attained, it seems to me that once they have children, women lose more than men in terms of work opportunities and financial independence. And all because the house and the children still seem to be a "woman's job".

It's all great to find women who are happy being the SAHP, but don't these women feel sometimes that being 100% financially dependent on their husbands is frustrating? Doesn't this situation make them feel trapped and powerless? Is it OK for women to sacrifice their independence for the sake of their children and the house keeping?

I work part-time, and have two small children, and still feel trapped sometimes. I'm grateful in many ways that my husband earns enough so we don't have to worry about paying for mortgage, food, childcare etc - and I contribute to this too - but I feel it's far beyond from the ideal I had when I was young and it really annoys me. If I'm honest, it makes me very angry.

I would like a society where men and women work part time, share domestic tasks 50/50, and look after their children part time, and therefore pay for everything on equal terms. Is this too much to ask in the fierce capitalist society we live today? Am I naive to think that should be the case?

I am certainly not "career dependent" on my DH providing childcare.

Its great he is at part of the week. He could provide childcare all of the week but we chose not to do that. He could work full time but we chose not to do that.

Whatever he choses to do or not do has no impact whatsoever on my career.

He wants to work full time? DS goes into childcare ft.

He wants to work part time? DS goes into childcare pt and DH has him pt.

He wants to be a ft SAHD? He has DS full time

None of which affects my career in anyway so I would be highly offended by suggestions that it did.

Perhaps I am lucky that I can afford childcare if required, but even if I couldn't, if DH chose to work his salary would cover it so I don't think many people are "career dependent" on their partner looking after children. There will be some excpetions such as lower paid shift work, but on the whole I don't think this is the case.

My husband isn't career dependent on me providing childcare, and I'm not career dependent on him providing childcare, - it's the "primary carer who has to stay at home"-model that is damaging careers, not having children.

I think your salary has a lot to do with it. I worked it out that for two children I will have spent £160,000 on childcare by the time they no longer need it (I am 100% dependent on professional childcare). That's prohibitive for a lot of families.

I also think children's age has a lot to do with it. When mine were younger I needed a lot of time off work because of various childhood illnesses. You cannot get professional childcare to cover this because of OFSTED regulations, whereas a parent or family member/relative can cover this. (Fortunately, I have a very enlightened boss who was a very hands-on father of four so understood completely. That's not exactly representative though is it.)

Given that 4 in 5 working mothers rely primarily on childcare provided by family and friends (overwhelmingly GPs) I think that speaks volumes.

I think, beyond the very real economic considerations of paying for childcare, there is a tipping point for most families when having two breadwinning careers in one family makes the amount of time children spend in paid childcare/the amount of time families are apart distasteful. The tipping point might be reached when one partner gets a promotion abroad or when both get jobs that involves very heavy duty travel.

I just did some quick calcs. I think, with childcare vouchers, £1500 a month would get you ft nursery based childcare for 2 children, but I am going to take it to £1750 to factor in regional differences and after school clubs.

That would mean you need a salary of £27k ish to cover your childcare. Thats about the median salary in the UK so maybe half of families could do this.

I think childminders would be cheaper and would maybe need a take home of £1300 a month to cover 2 children full time, so thats about a £19k salary to cover so fairly doable.

Through in pt help from gps etc and I think if people really want to do it they can in a lot of cases. Then there are the free slots for children 3 and over etc.

It just that not many people (myself included) would want to work ft merely to pay for the childcare that allowed me to do that.

But it doesnt make the parent that earns career dependent on the SAHP

I agree that if both careers involved heavy travel, or one person worked shifts or irregular hours it gets a lot more difficult. In most cases like that I think a choice would be made for 1 person to stay at home. Its still a choice, but the cost of not doing so gets higher on a lot of levels

sunshineandbooks, you make some very good points. Even though I work, DH is "career dependent" on me atm.

"There will be some excpetions such as lower paid shift work, but on the whole I don't think this is the case."

I disagree. DH isn't on a particularly low wage and there is no way he could financially pay for child care if I weren't around. He doesn't work shifts but is out of the house from7.30/8 am until 7pm.

But if you were working LesA, you would earn a salary which could be used to pay for the childcare.

So we've established that nearly half the population will find it economically impossible and that the rest need to throw in part-time help from family if both parents work.

I'd say that suggests that a huge amount of careers are built on the back of childcare provided by a partner. That doesn't mean it's impossible to have a career independent of a partner, of course it doesn't (I'm a single parent), but to deny the role played by women whose childcare does enable their partner to travel away at short-notice, not take frequent days off when the child is sick and the CM/nusery/school won't take them, cover unsociable hours that most CMs/nurseries won't cover (round here for example, no nurseries are open on weekends and won't cover anything before 8am or after 6pm) is incredibly dismissive.

I am not denying the role played, but I am denying that my career is dependent on my DH providing childcare. That simply isn't true.

I think there are situations where it is economically impossible for both parents to work and there are situations where it is psychologically distasteful for both parents to work.

Both situations can be mediated to some extent by free childcare from the extended family. If both parents are travelling abroad, it is less awful for the children if their grandparents are around to take care of them than if they are left with a nanny, quite apart from any economic consideration.

I never said you in particular were. Why so defensive? I simply said that this is the truth for many.

I totally agree those situations exist but I don't agree that they are so prevelant that the majority of people who do work have careers that depend on a partner providing SAH child care.

Sorry - if I sound defensive its probably because I have had zip sleep :)

Bonsoir, I think the fact that the UK has lost the dominance of the extended family is a real shame and harms a lot of women by removing them from an extended support network. It also worries me greatly that in pursuit of money we are all encouraged to move around chasing work and to work for longer than ever, resulting in even less community and extended family support.

(In some cases where a family is completely dysfunctional this may be a good thing though I suppose)

and when you look at that cost of childcare the fact they're now saying all single parents will have to be working by the time their children are 3 becomes quite shocking because literally how the fuck? only by tax credits and interventions does it become financially viable if you haven't got a co worker or co childcarer in your family unit.

and bringing in these changes for single parents are automatically a devaluing of sahps too.

there is interdependence btw as well as outright dependence - if two people are sharing the roles and the work necessary then of course they are interdependent. not sure why that is offensive to anyone? it's how humans work both in families and societies since time immemorial - we're not islands.

"It just that not many people (myself included) would want to work ft merely to pay for the childcare that allowed me to do that. "

That calculation is wrong as you're not only paying for childcare but for maintaining and improving your employability.

Also, the less you earn the more you can get in terms of childcare element. I agree, the help you get with childcare currently is not enough ( we're not high earners, but not low wage earners either. Childcare and commuting costs eat up one of our two incomes, without qualifying for much help if any with it at all).

If you see work of course only as something that brings in money, rather than something fulfilling in itself I can understand your reasoning, but I'd also say it might be worth looking at a career change.

I really think that good quality childcare should be avaliable and affordable for everyone and it is a real issue that it is not.

no parent does it independently - if they're working they're dependent on childcare (either provided by a spouse, family member or paid for professionally - it's still depended upon as you can't get to work if your children aren't cared for).

what we need to find a way of is making that interdependence fair all round - on men, women and children.

for that working practices have to change, childcare has to change and gender expectations have to change and so do our basic values - re: work as the be all and end all of value.

If both parents care about the fact that their children have a parent as a primary carer, then, yes, the earning parent will depend on the non-earning parent to provide childcare.

If neither parent cares about that fact and are both happy to outsource childcare, neither parent is dependent on the other for childcare.

What happens, however, when an earning parent doesn't care about their children having a parent as primary carer and a non-earning parent does? The earning parent will not feel dependent on the non-earning parent, but the non-earning parent will feel that the earning parent depends on her (or him).

It is when parents are differently aligned on these issues that problems arise.

If 4 out of 5 working mothers are using unpaid help provided by family or friends, and most primary carers (whether working or not) are unpaid mothers, then that's an awful lot of work dependent on childcare being provided for free.

Whether at family leve or an a wider economic level this country is hugely dependent on free childcare and yet it is chronically undervalued.

Widow, I was refering specifcally to the financial aspect in response to the idea of one partners career depending on the other partner providing childcare. If someone is happy to SAH, the cost of childcare is not likely to provide much of a financial incentive to work but it doesnt make it financially impossible in a lot of cases.

"and bringing in these changes for single parents are automatically a devaluing of sahps too."

I rather see a devaluing of SAHPing than a situation where working is less economically viable than staying at home and claiming benefits

Because staying at home to look after a child of course means sitting on your backside watching Jeremy Kyle and letting your child drink bleach out of the cupboard?

Staying at home to care for a child is not the same as being unemployed with no dependents.

bunnygirl, I don't understand your point.

I do work, and I do pay for child care atm.

I do the before and after school club drop offs and and pick ups that DH couldn't do because he has a longer commute.

Only be me choosing to work close to home, and not 100 miles away like I did pre-DC has DH been able to continue with his career.

I haven't sacrificed anything for his career, we have both chosen what we wanted to do. Luckily both of us didn't want to stay at home full time or work full time.

OP, you say you work part time. If your husband also worked part time, would that be the ideal solution? If you can find a part time job, why can't he? (Although I think I already know the answer)