Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The optional nature of men's lives

411 replies

cailindana · 24/01/2015 12:35

I was talking about this with DH recently and he agreed with much of what I said.

It strikes me that boys and men have very "optional" lives in comparison to girls and women and that this influences their whole approach to life. What I mean is, girls learn pretty early on that their choices will be restricted, that their options will be limited. From only being allowed to wear skirts and then told they mustn't show their knickers (thus removing the option to be active) to suddenly having to deal with periods and curtailing activities due to that, to then contending with the prospect of unwanted pregnancy and thus having restrictions on sexuality to then being told not to walk certain places not to do certain things for fear of being attacked and ultimately being told you "can't have it all" - ie choose work or children.

IMO, women (in general of course, not all) learn very quickly that there are consequences to things, that you can't always have what you want, that sometimes you just have to get on with it and face the fact that everything isn't perfect. I think that influences their approach to so many things in life from housework, to illness, to childrearing. Men on the other hand, always seem to have options open to them and I think that leads to a certain immaturity, a lack of acceptance that sometimes you can't have what you want. I think it has a bearing on how men approach things like fatherhood and the idea that now you don't have any choice but to knuckle down and accept your life is different - so many men seem to want to "opt out" and carry on as if nothing is different, thus leaving women to, as usual, take the hard road.

While I don't think it's right that women often end up carrying the burden I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing to have that maturity foisted on you. I think while women do lose out massively in the earlier years, especially when children are young, that maturity and that acceptance stands them in very good stead as they get older and ultimately they reap the rewards. I notice among older friends that women seem to come into their own in their 50s whereas men can't face that their options are now becoming limited and they no longer have the world open to them - hence mid-life crises etc. I think also because men expect options they tend to skirt on the edges of responsibility, never full accepting the hardship of, for example, parenthood, and thus ending up on the fringes as children get older and become true friends and companions. Thus women, who have been the stable guiding force in childhood, mucking in, organising, being the go-to person, reap the rewards of a close relationship with their adult children, whereas men, who focused on work, never really got their hands dirty with parenting, are now coming to retirement and the loss of that source of status but have not really jumped in with both feet in family life and so don't have that either. They are left with very little.

I am not saying the equality that exists is a good thing. What I'm saying I suppose is that while women look on enviously at men continuing their careers and never attending a parents' evening, they might do well to remember that the emotional toil and labour they put into their families is really and truly worth something. Jobs come and go, they give no love or longterm support. But children are for life, and being that person who always knows where the PE kit is is important, is special.

Men are missing out. They just don't realise that until it's too late.

OP posts:
PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 17:16

This is rather continuing a tangent to Cailin's original post, but on clothing. I was in the City on 7/7. The level of practicality of the men's clothes as they suddenly faced walking 2/3/7 miles home was startlingly greater than that for the women, taken as a group.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 17:19

"but the majority of mums dont even breastfeed nowadays."

I see your point if you are talking by the end of maternity leave. However, that statement isn't statistically accurate based on government figures. They fluctuate, but close to 80% initiation rates and about 45% at 6 weeks is common I think.

I agree with your fundamental point though, that a dad and a mum can look after a baby just as well as one another. There is however something of a bar in the very early days if a woman wants to bf.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 25/01/2015 17:20

There is no difference in men and women bringing up children. To say other wise is to pay attention to the type of person who thinks that ladybrain exists, surely.

What there is, in today's society, is a belief that women are just better suited to childcare or that men just don't see the mess. It's bollocks, utter utter bollocks. However, a large number, if not the majority of people have been brought up with these narrow interpretations of domestic sex roles, there are people who truly, honestly believe that men are incapable of nurturing children. I've met far too many of them. They truly honestly believe that they stand for equality too, a lot of the time, which is interesting.

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 17:23

Dh did a large percentage of feeds with dc 2 when I breastfed for 9 months. I wanted to still go out with me friends on nights out and have nights to sleep. I am not committed enough to do 100% of the childcare I like doing my own thing too much. I havent this time as went back so early but I could have expressed for dh to do it but will admit it is more of a faff.

TheFriar · 25/01/2015 17:26

What there is, in today's society, is a belief that women are just better suited to childcare or that men just don't see the mess

YY to that.
The problem is when the majority of people think that way.
And at the moment, this is what it is :(.

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 17:30

I dont understand why some people think that way. Do you think they know they are being ridiculous but are just ashamed that they arent standing up for themselves? I cant see how anyone would actually believe it.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 17:31

I would agree with that, and it comes back to Cailin's original post. That many people see women as better suited to childcare. So parenting is their default. Sure, you can depart from the default and work outside the home, but it's assumed that, when you are around your children, you are better suited to parenting them, and that being responsible for them is your default.

On the other hand, a man will far more often see himself as choosing what he is doing with his non-working time - he may choose to involve himself in parenting for 2 hours by doing the football match, but then he can choose not to parent for an hour by simply starting to mow the lawn. Not denying that that's useful. Just saying that a woman about to mow the law would, IME, be far more likely to 'check in' and hand over controls. "I am going to mow the lawn. You listen out for Freddie when he wakes up from his nap?"

ShumbTucker · 25/01/2015 17:33

The biological father of DS opted out when I was pregnant and we didn't see him for dust. I met DH when DS was a tiny baby and DH assumed the role of father with relative ease, he loves being a parent and engages fully in family life. DH has received a lot of stick for "playing dad", from comments about "you would feel differently if it was your own" and "yeah you love him but not like your blood". He left his last job as when DS was sick and I needed to be in work for a presentation his ex employer told him "he isn't your kid so you need to be here". Even though DH has opted in fully, he is still seen as less than the secondary parent and it hurts him deeply, he thinks he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. His choice to be a good, dedicated and reliable parent is clouded by the "blood is thicker than water" brigade, he's trying to do the right thing but it's not good enough for some people. Hmm

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 17:34

"I dont understand why some people think that way. Do you think they know they are being ridiculous but are just ashamed that they arent standing up for themselves? I cant see how anyone would actually believe it."

Some people do genuinely think this way. My super religious friend does.

Some people 'choose' to believe it because the alternative means confronting some unpleasant realities. No one likes to believe that someone who they love, and who loves them, is effectively taking advantage of them. Denial can be a powerful mechanism of self-protection.

Some people know what's going on, but know nothing will change and they'd be facing the reality of a broken relationship.

Lots of reasons.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 17:36

I find it quite easy to understand why people think that way. Its the hundreds of messages a day they receive that contribute to it. It's not ridiculous to take on board those messages.

Even if they don't take on board those messages there are subtler things which maintain those norms. Such as female dominated industries or those that employ a lot of women e.g. public sector being more geared to flexible working and male dominated industries, not so much. So it is easier for women to be able to work more flexibly. Questions are asked of women that aren't asked of men around childcare and working. Expectations are different. All these add up.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 17:39

yy scallops

PuffinsAreFictitious · 25/01/2015 17:40

[High Five] Scallops

TheFriar · 25/01/2015 17:50

ShumbTucker Yes. That sort of attitude is damaging to men too because it's assumed that men can't look after children or want to be present etc...

Scallops I would also say that there are some benefits into the system. Not having to bear the responsibilty of earning money and 'being looked after' (as my mum told me when I said I was getting married Hmm) is giving a great sense of security for women. until they end up divorced or a widow or married to a bastard
And men don't have to deal with all the boring housework and the hardship of children.

Talking about myself, using the system to my own advantage has allowed me to do what I wanted of my life wo any worry of the consequences (And I did and yes it is great to be able to do so!).
This happened only Because there has been indeeed 'someone to look after me' or rather someone to look after finances.
And just as much as I am a feminist, it took me years to realise that if I wanted to fully reject that patriarcal system, then I also needed to reject the 'good sides' of the system.

No system will be accepted for so long unless there was some advantages for both groups.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 19:51

Are women 'being looked after'? I'd highly dispute that. More like, they are doing the unpaid work men don't want to do.

With earning the money, comes status. Something not afforded to women looking after their own home and children. That situation, as you alluded to, can more easily create a power imbalance especially in this society where childcare and housework is not valued (unless it isn't done up to a variable and indeterminate certain standard). That in turn leads to abusive situations where the person with the status i.e. the money & status. If men felt hard done by with going out of the home to earn the bucks, they would have changed the system. After all they control it.

TheFriar · 25/01/2015 20:14

I don't agree. With money comes status that is shared by both partners. That's why Bonsoir at the start of this thread was saying that she knows a lot of high flyers women who are now SAHM and think they have the best situation. They have husband who earn plenty, allowing them the status and all the things they want whilst doing whatever they want of their time, and just having an easier time.

When I think there is an issue is that we have a society that expects women to concenrtae on childrearing and do loittle in terms of work. And then to still be fully financially independent if they are divorced/widow. (Not possible. If you want to be fully independent financially, you need to keep working as if you want to stay like this, not going part time, stopping for years etc...)
So yes it does mean it stops some women to get out easily from abusive situation. And you also have the (heartbreaking imo) situation of the woman who was a SAHM all her life, devoted all her time to the dcs and her 'D'H decides to get divorced as soon as the youngest child turns 18yo. She is left with nothing, the need to be financially independent when it will be a very hard situation as she hasn't worked (or very little) for 20 years etc (ie following the 'model'). And no time to get back on her feet.

On the other side, if I take my own situation as an example, I have benefited immenselly from it. I still do actually. I work (self employed) but never felt the overwhelming 'need' to earn lots as DH is providing (ie he is the main earner). I still can look at let's say courses I fancy doing, going for them just checking I can afford it but if I had needed to 'earn' that money (ie I was expected to be a main earner) I wouldn't have done it as too expensive and 'unnecessary' etc...

Bonsoir · 25/01/2015 20:21

Women gain a lot of status via their husbands. I even know divorced women who, years after their divorces, allude to the illustrious careers of their exHs ("I was good enough to snag a McKinsey partner") when there isn't a hope in hell of a repeat performance 20 years down the line and 3 DC later!

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 20:31

Yes, the status that comes with high wealth is shared by both partners. But that is because the status of being very wealthy is so great that some of the shine is allowed to rub off on everyone around the high earner.

For your average working family, the status comes from being the earner.

Regarding the idea that a woman's salary being 'optional' brings freedom - to retrain, to take a low paying job she loves, etc. Yes, I would agree. But again only for a high earning strata of society. For the majority of women in this country with young children:

  • their salary is needed to keep the family afloat; or
  • they look at the sums and decide that their work doesn't bring in enough margain on top of salary to be 'worth it'.

The freedom of a job bringing in the pin money really is the privilege of the wealthy.

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 20:33

I am embarrassed for women who hang on to their husbands status.I have seen it before when working abroad my husband was told not to park in a space as 'do you know who my husband is. He is a.....' Why would anyone say that? It sounds even worse if they arent even working. Confused

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 20:47

But it doesn't work the other way around does it. I don't think? Where a woman is more successful / the higher earner, the man doesn't have that same sort of reflected status does he.

So it's not just about the money / flashy job, it's back to gender roles, who does what. For a man to be successful means to be successful in the world of work and have the trappings that go with that, for a woman to be successful means having the looks/charisma/whatever to "snare" a rich man to "look after" her.

And I recognise this in the people I know as well. These attitudes, these definitions of success.

Have we really not moved past these "fairytale" roles?

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 20:50

I mean I have a great job and love it, work full time and am the main earner. I don't feel the pressure that others mention on this thread although as a dual income household maybe that is lessened. But still, I'm the one with the "important" job.

And yet there isn't a sense that wow isn't she fantastic look at her with her great job and he's so lucky having her to look after him. I think people think that I'm a bit weird / feel sorry for me (?) for working full-time and, well, I have no idea what people make of DH TBH Grin

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 20:50

I don't think the status is shared by both partners. The lifestyle is. But if you split up the man takes his lifestyle with him. There is no power with it. Even with high earners. Just look at how the wives/partners of footballers are described. Woman = goldigger is a widely thought trope. See creambun's post above.

That's not real power or status.

However, I am really glad you do benefit from your arrangement. A partnership should be mutually beneficial. Unfortunately for too many women, it isn't.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 20:51

Sorry that was to TheFriar.

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 20:54

Cause there isnt any status. You wouldnt say my dh has a first at oxford when you only left school with gcses. It would just look completely embarrassing as people would think great but what have you done? Even if they didnt say it. Fine looking after children if you want to but they are the husbands achievements not the wives imo.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 20:58

Children are the husbands achievements? I think I've misunderstood that.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 20:59

Yy Sardine about it not being the same the other way round when you move out of the gender roles. It's still boils down to misogyny.