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 21:00

Yes, agreed scallops and sardine (sea theme there..)

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 25/01/2015 21:02

scallops- I think cream bun meant look after the children if you wish, but the husbands career achievements are his, not shared .Smile

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 21:03

Ahh yes! Doh!

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 21:04

I mean fine if you sah to look after children that is obviously a needed role in some families, but that doesnt mean you are a lawyer, doctor or footballer just because you married one. It is common as bonsoir states that some women say my dh is a (insert career) as if everyone is meant to be impressed. Well done you managed to marry a man.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 21:17

I've only just really realised that what you describe there creambun is the women saying "I married Prince Charming".

The whole fairytale princess thing has just really slotted into place in a way that it hadn't before. I mean obv be pretty marry the prince I got but I hadn't previously realised that Andrew a Stockbroker living in Surrey was Prince Charming IYSWIM.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 21:20

Or you may just be telling people about your husbands achievements/job. Which is what I would take from that conversation.

And I think it's a bit disparaging to think that SAHM don't achieve anything. They may not achieve things that society values, especially in comparison to whatever their partner does (even if that isn't very much). And there may be a few privileged women who don't have to work or look after children and spend their days lunching. I would still ask at what price. Very powerful and rich men are not known for their empathy, let's just say. There are plenty of men in the same privileged position of not needing to work. But the vast vast majority of women work, they may not get paid for it though.

Of course single parents (if they are women) are the lowest of the low in terms of status. And they generally earn and look after kids. So perhaps there is a small amount of status living with a man.

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 21:34

I would think that in society generally the status of a woman is still very much tied up in whether she has managed to marry (or settle down) with someone reliable / earning potential / well off etc (relative to her family and peers prob) and also to retain that relationship.

I'm having a bit of a moment here realising that so much in the media and society and everywhere is around these things.

I suppose people feel sorry for me because I haven't managed to marry a man rich enough, so that I have to work full time. I don't think it occurs to anyone that I like it!

I also really really don't get on with alpha male types (can't think why!) and so it was never on the cards that I'd marry Andrew from Surrey as I'd end up wanting to stove someone's head in with a shovel, possibly my own.

This Prince Charming narrative is much nearer the surface of everything than I had realised until 13 minutes ago Confused

SardineQueen · 25/01/2015 21:35

YY society doesn't value SAHM.

Because society doesn't value women, is the end point there really.

creambun2014 · 25/01/2015 21:42

Totally agree sardinequeen.

Scallops - I think it is the way it is said. I have worked closely with the forces and the amount of women that say well I can do whatever it is as my dh is a (whatever rank) and use it to get something they want.

scallopsrgreat · 25/01/2015 21:51

SardineQueen, I am in a similar position. I'm the main earner (soon to be sole earner) and I love it. Andrew the Stockbroker would be my worst nightmare been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

I think the other thing is about The Price Charming thing is that men don't actually have to do that much to earn that status. They can be very uncharming, for example.

BallroomWithNoBalls · 25/01/2015 22:26

Interesting thread!

I married an Andrew - not knowingly to be fair, and we earned the same when I went on mat leave (different work arenas though) but in the years since I became a sahm doing only bits and pieces freelance, his pay has gone fairly sky high and I can if I choose appear to be a trophy wife or whatever.

Regarding his work though - he now works such incredibly long hours, I didn't see him most of last week as he was out of the house 8am til gone midnight every night. He will be travelling for work this week.

He enjoys his job and is good at it - but beyond that, he sees it as being a good father to bring home lots of money. We both appreciate that I don't have to work (two preschoolers) bit it doesn't mean I'm not stir crazy at home a lot of the time, and I recognise a lot of what cailindana and others say about options. But also I think responsibility weighs heavily on some men to work hard and provide .

DH is a hands on dad - I am unwell today and he looked after children all day, he often does the bulk of childcare at weekends and when he's on hols, it is definitely split 50/50. But the nature of me being at home is that I know the foibles of the children, I do the bulk of the discipline all week - so for example DS kicked off at bedtime today and I could hear DH getting impatient and not dealing with it well because he's just not used to it. Same with dinner - he had to come and ask me what he should cook.

It's not because he's useless or unwilling or sexist though - it's just the outcome of his role and mine being so divided during the week. Nothing can be done unfortunately - it's impossible for me to do proper work as he would never be able to pick up the slack childcare wise, and his job is notoriously long hours and lots of travel. He tells me the women pretty much all leave after having children, which is rubbish.

I don't think he realises how much stuff I do during the week - so today he was in charge of everything, but didn't do any laundry or cleaning like I would have done had I been in charge of the kids all day. He did his best but he just spends so little time at home, he doesn't realise. On bad weeks I yell at him that he treats the place like a hotel, but that's not fair. He's doing his best in his role, I'm doing my best in mine.

I will go back to work when the children are a little older - I'm not a contented sahm. It's not that DH is doing anything wrong, I just can't stand it. I will pay for a cleaner and some childcare - done.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 00:02

I suppose people feel sorry for me because I haven't managed to marry a man rich enough, so that I have to work full time

Has anyone ever said that to you? Or suggested it? Why do you assume that and is it men or other women?

DadWasHere · 26/01/2015 00:18

YY society doesn't value SAHM.

It values SAHDs even less IMO.

BallroomWithNoBalls · 26/01/2015 10:41

Sorry, reading back my post is very waffly!

I guess my point is that my DH would say that I have more choices than he does - he's boxed into his long hours, high pressure job - he can't stop, he can't choose to spend more time with kids or with me or in the house or on hobbies because it's his duty to provide for family.

Whereas I have been dipping in and out of paid work, using a variety of childcare, and I do have an element of freedom in that I can decide how I spend the day, play dates, trips out or whatever.

I think the problem is a dichotomy between our roles that seems to have developed and expanded, trapping us both into our stereotypical roles.

BreakingDad77 · 26/01/2015 10:49

I think there is a mix of things going on, as we transition from the old traditional roles.

The whole range from some women wishing to hold on to being in charge of the 'house' with the man going out to work (baby crying "I've been working all day/working I need my rest").

To the women feeling she is expected to do all the house/kids and then start to realise shes' getting a crap deal, that her husband who is happy to sit back ("just nipping to my shed/insert hobby")

To couples where still woman does all the chores but the husband exasperates "I took them to after school club"

To couples who are trying to divvy the tasks up as best as possible. Though the man gets lauded "wow your so involved" but are just doing their fair share.

Chunderella · 26/01/2015 12:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BallroomWithNoBalls · 26/01/2015 12:55

That is true chunderella.

When I think about the things I am happy with in my life - the fact that I can choose to be a sahm, my for-the-most-part-nice house, the fact that we can afford takeaways and the occasional night out, that I can have a lie in at the weekend or spend a few hours on my reasonably pricy hobby - these are all down to the man I married.

I made some pretty reckless decisions in my youth with my career and money - my younger brother recently said he sees me as a role model for that mistakes when you're younger don't matter and that it's possible to turn out well anyway. I felt like a bit of a fraud when he said that as my 'nice, sorted' life feels down to my DH and not me. I have a degree and good professional standing, but right now it's DH that has the far bigger impact on the quality of our lives.

I still think that's a huge pressure on him though. We are all relying on him to maintain our lifestyle. (We aren't rolling in it btw, just enough that we can afford for me to sah and we can cover all the basics and some treats too.)

cailindana · 26/01/2015 14:48

I don't agree that SAHMs gain status in their own right from what their husbands do.
It seems to me that we value women in reference to men. Hence the title of "First Lady" which is an actual job bestowed on a woman simply for being married to a president. What would the first female president's husband be called I wonder? What would his role be? Would he have a job that exists purely in reference to his wife, or would he be allowed to conduct his own life?
That sort of "status" is the same "status" as we give children - it is not the status of an adult but of someone who is due respect simply by association.

OP posts:
TheFriar · 26/01/2015 15:27

The status thing and having more freedom clearly applies to people who can live on one income (or with the woman being part time).
But that's surely the situation for all SAHM so maybe not such an unusual situation ???

TheFriar · 26/01/2015 15:38

cailain I don't think the husband of a woman president would have much more freedom. Because a lot of the barriers are coming from the position itself rather than being a man/woman.

I really do think though that as long as we will carry on asking to have the same than men, ie respect re job, ability to work (which is linked with the men taking on more responsibility at home as otherwise it's just unfeasible) then we are missing the point because we are asking to have the same than men.
What we should be asking (and in IMO need as a society) is to see childrearing as a role as important as earning money.
This would solve a lot of issue re one partner having the possibility to 'have some authority' and 'more rights' than the other partner.
It would allow women to go back to work, men to be SAHD, both parents being involved in their children lives.
Whereas if we concentrate in what we don't have, we put ourselves in the position of the weak one. We tell men that actually childrearing isn't that important (as we tell them earning money us more important) and we leave men squarely into their box, which will stop any movement for proper equality.

BallroomWithNoBalls · 26/01/2015 16:49

Yes the ideal for my family (and I suspect most) would not be the current set up where I am ft sahm and DH is ft at work, but a mix of the two - if DH could work 4 days and I could work 1 or something. I'm happy that we only use childcare when we have to, but then because I'd rather not (no judgement on those who do, it's just my preference) then it's me who feels guilty as it's my choice to work. DH isn't affected either way, he's supportive of me working but it just doesn't make sense for me to atm.

But most big companies like DH's wouldn't consider letting a man work 4 days. Well he could I suppose but not command the same salary at all.

I wish there was more part time good work around - it would free up everyone, male and female. The bits and pieces of work I have managed to do have not been as highly paid or as high status as the ft work I did before kids appeared.

Dervel · 26/01/2015 16:59

That would necessitate a complete reworking of how society operates, although don't misunderstand me I happy to agree with you. I'm just unclear on how we get there, either in terms of a one off big shock and change scenario (like a revolution), or even how we begin to make incremental changes towards that end.

The most I have been able to work through in my own head is a deconstruction of what we value. Money used to represent a raw valuable material (ie the gold standard), and psychologically we still kind of approach it from that perspective. We value things and not necessarily the time required to achieve them.

It is I am sure no accident that we reward traditionally male dominated roles materially more than what women have been traditionally left with. However when you start to look at the wide gamut of human achievement and look by time spent as opposed to material acquired it all starts to look very different.

We (as a society not on here obviously), demonise stay at home mothers (particularly single ones on benefits) as somehow not producing anything of value. When in truth they are producing and nurturing the next generation of society, and well they do (which really should read we), will have a far greater impact on the future of society than how much our gdp is any given year.

Yet somehow the considerable time spent in growing, nurturing and teaching a new life is not even actually considered of value, because somehow we got to the point where unless you are generating wealth you are worth nothing. Bizarrely as well the people who tend to be the wealthiest rarely are the ones actually producing anything they are just adept at essentialy moving money around, and when it moves anywhere they take their "cut".

I wouldn't blame any woman who takes a gander at the status quo and says "screw the grunt work I'm doing something high status and lucrative" after all that's what men have been doing for generations. Although I haven't the foggiest how restructure everything, but I think the more feminists push the boundaries it will force the issue sooner or later and we'll all have to collectively fix it.

Totally agree with the spirit of this thread, although women are a lot more autonomous than before, every choice a woman makes is second guessed, deconstructed, and criticised. Doesn't matter what the choice is it will be put under the microscope. Men are by and large free from this.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 26/01/2015 17:08

"But most big companies like DH's wouldn't consider letting a man work 4 days. Well he could I suppose but not command the same salary at all. "

People say things like this all the time and I just don't get it. Companies are required by law to be just as accommodating to men as women, and I've never seen any real evidence (used to be an employment lawyer so read a lot around these issues) that companies are that much less accommodating of men. It seems a man making a flexible working request is as likely to succeed as a woman, broadly speaking.

So we really seem to be naming it as the wrong issue. Surely what the real issue is is "Most big companies see part time workers as less committed and less ripe for promotion". And men aren't as willing to make that career sacrifice as women (and this thread has explored a lot of the complex reasons that might be the case). It isn't that man get a harder deal than women on this, it's that men aren't as willing to accept the only deal going.

Or have others seen other evidence? It's something that really interests me.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 17:51

But most big companies like DH's wouldn't consider letting a man work 4 days. Well he could I suppose but not command the same salary at all

Has he asked? My understanding is that it is contrary to equality legislation if a man is refused part time work if the employer regularly allows women to. Discrimination works both ways.

We have a part time father (in a senior post) in my small department and I'm aware there are other part time male workers at various levels in the firm.

And of course they have to take a salary cut. No one could expect 5 days salary for 4 days work.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 17:57

Several of my partners are female and are part time. I don't agree it's automatically a barrier to promotion if that's what a woman wants. It may be a useful excuse to avoid saying that actually she's not particularly interested.