Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Dervel · 27/01/2015 12:41

My two penneth on the matter is hit the ground running as a Dad, if your as involved as humanly possible (although not at the expense of the maternal bond, it's not a competition! Children need both) from birth, you experience elevated levels of the hormone pectolactin.

This drives and encourages the bonding process, and generates a positive feedback loop. The more you do it, the more you want to do it. This hormone elevation lasts about six moths, by then you are securely bonded with the baby, and goes from there.

The biological imperative drives you to want to parent. I can understand why if not having the benefit of this cycle some blokes might conclude they aren't cut out for this parenting lark and carry the assumptions women are better at it.

cailindana · 27/01/2015 13:55

Again Phaedra, it seems that you reject all the ideas that underlie feminism, so why are you here? Everything anyone says you just say "that's irrelevant, that's not my experience," even when someone presents actual evidence (such as 2.1 million SAHMs as opposed to 227,000 SAHDs which answers your question about whether the woman staying at home is the norm pretty clearly) you just dismiss it.

If you don't believe feminism is necessary, that's not a problem, but it's pretty odd to specifically come on a feminist board and sit there sniping and refusing to engage with anything.

OP posts:
Keepithidden · 27/01/2015 14:10

Interesting stuff Dervel, I think I would agree with you about much of that as far as my youngest is concerned. However it certainly wasn't the case with my oldest. I didn't bond with him until at least six months post-birth, despite hitting the ground running.

Then to be fair though, I didn't have the biological imperative to be a parent. It was a societal assumption that it would happen, I wanted to keep DW happy and I was pretty ambivalent to it all. Wouldn't change the decision for the world now, but at the time it wasn't a choice I felt particularly strongly about either way.

That probably says more about me than anything else! It does serve to demonstrate that you and I despite both being male have different experiences, and you can't really judge by gender, at an individual level anyway.

cailindana · 27/01/2015 14:15

Both DH and I struggled to bond with DD (our second DC). The difference being that I looked after her all day and got up with her all night and he flaked out and did pretty much nothing. Again, the optional thing. In that situation, where both of us were struggling, I had no option but to keep going (result being I ended up depressed) while he just ran away to work and hid. If I had done the same thing, DD would have died.

Plenty of women struggle to bond with babies. But seeing as they are usually the ones on mat leave and doing most of the childcare they have no option but to soldier on.

OP posts:
Keepithidden · 27/01/2015 14:25

That's true Cailin.

I was talking to my sister about something similar, she was saying that her friend was one of the first (she's pushing 95 now) Feminists because she had to rear half a dozen kids after her husband skipped off. I didn't think that was a particularly feminist thing to do, more a lack-of-choice thing (like you). I didn't disagree though, she is my sister and I'm not about to argue feminism with a woman.

Women and men don't have a monopoly on child bonding or not, as the case maybe. It's a lot easier to extract yourself if you're a man tho', and a lot less flak from the rest of society if you succeed.

Blistory · 27/01/2015 14:28

It's all very well to say that managing directors and partners won't tolerate discrimination but in my experience, a lot of it is just lip service. The belief is still there but just not voiced that women aren't as career focused or ambitious as men and that dealing with maternity leave is a right royal pain in the arse for companies.

There's also the issue with men themselves - I know one of our employees told his wife he couldn't get flexible working with us. No he couldn't but not because it wasn't on offer but because he didn't ask. And when offered it by us pro-actively, he turned it down because he believed it would harm his career. So the problem lies in more than one place.

And Phaedra, I take on board what you say about your experiences but I spent a day in the Outer House last week and it was typical of my experience that the Judge was male, both Counsels were male, the bar officer was male, the Deputy clerk was male, the instructing solicitors were male but the assistants to both were female associates.

My experience of law firms in the Central Belt is very different to yours - I'm not a partner in a law firm but I socialise with many and once they're on the golf course or around the dinner table, it becomes clear that what they say in public and what they say in private are very different.

BreakingDad77 · 27/01/2015 14:42

Dervel indeed, with regards to getting involved, I have just got stuck in and just Grin inside with DW's friends or MIL, 'mummies knows best' as they pick up DS for cuddle who then grumbles and puts out hands to reach for me.

It makes me wonder how many dads who are pushed out from the start only for the partner to then moan in later years about how crap they are with the kids and just give up and how many are truly feckless?

I do feel for DW and she says to me that she feels a crap mother/wife as shes not doing everything, and I have to keep telling her to stop being silly this is 2015 we are both in this together.

cailindana · 27/01/2015 14:53

I'm not offering it as an excuse but as an explanation that the reason, I think, many women exclude men (consciously or otherwise) from childrearing is that it is the one arena where women are allowed and supposed to be "leaders" and it is a bit galling to see a man horn in and get the glory. It can pretty fucking annoying to be told you can't progress in work because you have to have babies, to go off and do your duty (so to speak) and to then feel that that isn't your realm either, that not only do you lose out in the "man's world" of work, you also lose out in the supposed woman's world of childrearing.
It's not a sensible or right way to feel, given that the dad is just as much a parent and should in no way be excluded but I can understand and sympathise with women wanting to take control of childrearing, given that control is denied in so man other arenas.

OP posts:
PhaedraIsMyName · 27/01/2015 15:22

My experience of law firms in the Central Belt is very different to yours - I'm not a partner in a law firm but I socialise with many and once they're on the golf course or around the dinner table

Well I am a partner in a law firm and a mother. My experience is no less credible or worth mentioning than yours just because mine doesn't support the prevailing view on here and yours does.

OP, I find your last post utterly depressing. We are not living in the 1950s. It's the lack of postivity in this and similar threads which gets to me.

cailindana · 27/01/2015 15:37

So the problem is not society or its structure but women themselves and their lack of positivity?

OP posts:
BreakingDad77 · 27/01/2015 15:43

The 'creepy' bit rings a bit with me at the moment as have been looking into getting into scouting as I found it so positive as youngster and there have been a few peado 'jokes' which is a bit off putting.

Blistory/Phaedra and others a relative was doing there LLB? i think couple years ago and they remarked it was nearly all women on the course where are they all going if it still very male centric? Are they giving up in face of it or is this a generational thing which will change with dead mans shoes?

FloraFox · 27/01/2015 15:48

It's not a generational thing BD, there has been 50/50 intake into law for 20+ years.

There are a lot of women lawyers working in-house., in the public sector and as professional support lawyers in firms. Some become SAHMs or leave to another career (legal recruitment has a lot of former lawyers). There are a lot of women working in the newish freelance agencies.

YonicScrewdriver · 27/01/2015 15:53

Phaedra, please. Someone says their experience is "very different to yours" and you jump to that being them saying that your experience is less credible or less worth mentioning.

No one is denying your experience, they are adding their own experiences.

Cailin, I think there's a lot of truth in your 1453 post.

BreakingDad, a friend of mine found the same. Bloody annoying and I agree it's a barrier.

Blistory · 27/01/2015 16:09

A lot of females in law, IME, find it difficult to progress beyond associate level. I think it's as a result of direct or indirect sexism on the part of both the employer and the partner/spouse.

I remain surprised at how many men simply won't entertain the thought of asking their employers. It's not a lack of us being positive - we positively support all our employees but still can't break through the barrier of persuading male employees that their career isn't prejudiced. I suspect it's because those male employees have their own prejudices that they may not even be aware of.

And Phaedra, I find it heartening that your Firm does well in this area but as a client who instructs many of the bigger players regularly, it isn't what I see when I give instructions. Plenty of female involvement at support level, associate level etc but less so at partner level and very little at senior partner level. Obviously your Firm is doing it differently so do you have any perspective on what it is that your Firm gets right ? Genuinely interested.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 27/01/2015 16:13

Blistory- I think sometimes it is prejudice they are aware of too. They see and hear how their colleagues (and they? ) talk about part timers and they don't want to be that person.

ApocalypseThen · 27/01/2015 16:31

This is a discussion I'm having with my husband at the moment. We earn the same amount but it's taken me longer to get here and I've reached a level where my career is on an upward trajectory whereas he believes that he's at his maximum earning potential for his line of work.

However, the option of part time/career break is one that he's perfectly happy to consider for me if I choose that but even though I'd be happier with the reverse he will not consider it at all.

Dervel · 27/01/2015 16:34

I do think that what society presents as valuable is crucial. We don't as a whole value people, we value if anything what they are worth and what sort of wealth they can generate. If the status quo allows men to continue on as is, it's simply going to continue on by default.

Yet consider this though if every stay at home parent went on strike, said to the other parent "I'm taking the week off", it would become pretty fucking obvious, pretty fucking quickly how important the role was. More so if you factor in care of the elderly, disabled etc which tends to fall by default under women's purview.

Often the very idea of ethics, and virtues is an anathema to progression in certain, and unfortunately that is an aspect of the job some fathers take home with them...

OFrabjousDay · 27/01/2015 16:39

SAHPs need to unionise :)

BreakingDad77 · 27/01/2015 16:43

ApocalypseThen

Sorry but is his ego that big?, if one of you has topped out then surely the other should continue as the main breadwinner.

YonicScrewdriver · 27/01/2015 16:49

I think ego is a bit simplistic - it's like it's not even on the horizon, like a parachute jump isn't on my horizon, I see others do it but I couldn't contemplate for myself.

PetulaGordino · 27/01/2015 16:50

yes it's a two-pronged thing. seeing the value in work (and people generally) that is not financially remunerated, and de-genderising types of work

ApocalypseThen · 27/01/2015 16:51

I don't think he sees our relative careers that way. He works by default, I can choose what I want. So far, I don't think I've explained very well what a loaded choice it is for me.

Dervel · 27/01/2015 16:55

Frabjous can you imagine? As I said up thread I am livid with the demonisation of single women on benefits, seemingly related with their consuming of resources and misconception they aren't contributing. I am of the view that if you create a person, then take the trouble to nurture and teach that person, you have contributed that most crucial of things a society needs: a new member of it!

Again reiterating my earlier point people at the top end of of the financial sector produce nothing. Merely move money around and taking their cut in the process of course!!!

TheFriar · 27/01/2015 20:49

For those who wonder if women don't get some benefits from a patriarcal organisation, have a look at this thread

THIS is the sort of benefits women are getting from the current arrangement.
Note too that none has said 'No I would always work because it's not fair on my DH to work whilst I do nothing/am a SAHM/do some voluntary work I like'.
Of course these roles DO have their importance but it's very clear that none of these women think that bringing some money in the house in their responsibility at all.
In that case, you can wonder if these women have any grounds to ask their DH/DP to do more HW/childrearing and take on these responsibilities in the same way than themselves.

DadWasHere · 27/01/2015 22:42

cailindana, it sounds terribly like you have only ever encountered men of my grandfathers ilk, which might be more currently relevant if I wasn’t now old enough to be a grandfather myself. Sure, your not kicking a dead horse yet but its OK to let it continue to die, and it is, because many men actually now want it to die. When my kids were little in my group of friends and workmates I saw both 'optional' dads and dads invested in their kids lives. But even back then far more common were dads who genuinely regretted not being able to be a bigger part in their young kids lives.

I am willing to bet that quite a fair number of your 'optional' dads did not start out that way but had 'dadhood' starved out of them. What I personally experienced was that commuting to and from work for up to four hours a day meant that the kids of fellow dads were asleep when they left in the morning and asleep when they returned home at night. All the dad had was a mobile phone call to his kids, if he could get reception, for five days a week. Tougher still before the age of mobiles. First one dad would call his kids and soon there was a cascade of dads doing the same, happy while they talked, grim faced when they hung up the phone.

That would have been me as well, but to get around that my wife got our kids to have an long nap in the afternoon so they could be awake when I came home. That, effectively, swapped the quality one on one time I could have with my wife after work for quality time I could have with my kids. So, instead of being the 'optional father', I had to try hard on weekends to make sure I was not the 'optional husband'.