My husband, the working dad

[TravellingToad]

Would I be unreasonable to start referring to all fathers who work as "working dads"?

I'm a business women, earn 6 figures, manage employees and have 2 children. Yet I just get reduced to "working mum". My husband who also works has NEVER been called a working dad.

It irritates me a lot, possibly unreasonably but I bristle every time someone says it purely because it just seems like another phrase that doesn't get applied equally across the sexes. To my ear it sounds like "women driver" or in a daily mail article "Grandma, 65, killed" whereas they would say "Man, 65, killed"

Does this get on anyone elses goat?

The 'oh, is their dad babysitting' used to get the response 'no, it's called parenting'

I'm not a working mum so hadn't thought of it. interesting idea!

TheLast

@ full-time wife

I also doubt my DH has ever been asked how he juggles work and fatherhood

Agree with you OP. Dh now works from home and occasionally brings the kids to client meetings (architect - site meeting, rambling around plots of land, sometimes clients kids there...) and he gets a lot of kudos. For me, I get the 'aw, mummy brings kids to work, you can't focus' nonsense.

I went away for a few days, my other SAH mummy friends bring lasagne and food supplies for dh and the kids. Dh goes away, I fend for myself...

He takes them swimming, he's a committed dad. I take them swimming, no comments. Argh argh argh. The rage.

YY. This double standard really gives me the rage.

Perhaps we should have special signals so that we can compliment each other if we see each other out and about with kids.

Performance bias occurs when people who are part of dominant groups, such as whites or men, are judged by their expected potential, while those who are part of less dominant groups such as people of color or women are judged by their proven accomplishments.
Yes, and because you haven't proved yourself, you won't be put on the projects where you would gain that experience and be able to prove yourself.

One of my colleagues announced his wife is due to have their third child in September. "Oh, are you going to share parental leave?" I asked. He looked at me like I had a third head or something. And they all seem to be coming up with activities and "lads' weekends" and so on where they don't have to do any parenting - and not doing the childcare seems to be one of the main reasons. That's fine, if their wives/partners also got to have childfree weekends, but it doesn't work quite that equally, and they don't seem to have any guilt over it.

When I was married, I paid every penny of childcare costs so that "I could work". Not so that we could work. So that I could work. Still gives me the rage now

The performance bias thing is awful and really has impact on things like performance. Have heard it first hand where male professors talk up their male juniors saying they have the potential and so be given opportunities and yet the woman has to prove herself. Also where we work, men get given the more visible and important jobs like director of research. Women get director of learning and teaching. Guess which has more impact? (Yes am an academic. I really want to refocus my research on this but I can't....).

NK the performance bias in academia realy makes my blood boil. I have heard of"senior" researchers (male) sayin things like "x cannot be a good researcher, she is a mother and leaves the lab at 5" (when her oficial working hours end)

I never let sexist comments go by and I always assume men will be as equally responsible for children as women as even 30 years ago my children's father hired and interviewed the nanny and we certainly regarded childcare as something very much shared. I think this year it is important women who learn a male collegue is expecting ask if he will share parental leave. The problem comes though if the woman's work offers generous full pay maternity leave and the man wouldn't get more than a few days of paid leave so that has a major impact. Employers at present are grappling with if it's discriminatory not to offer their very generous maternity schemes to fathers. It could be a big advantage to women and stopping sexism at home if employers do do this.

I assume the saying has come from the fact that even today more women don't go back to work or go back to work part time than men. I assume there is a significant difference in the amount. Like the World Cup. Football was a male sport and is only recently been gaining in popularity for women to play. It's just we are used to the World Cup relating to mele players. We don't say able bodied Olympics. To me it's the same thing.

Employers at present are grappling with if it's discriminatory not to offer their very generous maternity schemes to fathers. It could be a big advantage to women and stopping sexism at home if employers do do this.

My employer is - with the restriction that, if both parents work for my organisation, they have to share the (generous) contractual entitlement.

Employers at present are grappling with if it's discriminatory not to offer their very generous maternity schemes to fathers. It could be a big advantage to women and stopping sexism at home if employers do do this.

I think it would help with sexism at work, too. It would mean anyone of childbearing age or with a partner of childbearing age could take a career break, and it wouldn't just be women who are sidelined in case they have children. And of course, men won't go through the menopause, so if they have a younger wife (as many do), the possible window where they're at risk of taking time out will be longer than for women. But it's going to take a long time.

Ebear, I agree. I had no maternity rights just about apart from right to go back to work and time off for NHS appointments as I had not worked 2 years for an employer before each of the 3 babies and with the last two because I am self employed so I went right back (and we are talking a few days with the twins and 2 - 3 weeks with the older children). Had an employer offered me 6 months off on full pay (some do) I might well have taken it. Who wouldn't? Then I would be the one engrained at home as the one who knows about and deals with the baby. I am sure our mutual feminism would have meant when I went back to work we would have moved to 50/50 but it would not have been a very fair equitable and feminist start and enhanced maternity rights lovely though they are for many (and we need to remember most employers only offer 6 weeks at 90% pay - the statutory minimum which is not a very long period but probably takes you to where you stop bleeding after birth and a bit beyond) can make couples more sexist and it harder for women to achieve balance and fairness. The new leave rights for men do not involve money so for those short of money woman off 6 weeks at 90% pay and then both of you back full time is obviously the most financially advantageous option and necessary if you both have a mortgage to pay and then if you can afford it longer leave for the woman at £120 a week or whatever sum it is which does not pay for your first child's place at nursery or childcare place you don't want to lose or mortgage but zero for men. So it is probably only women on £100 a week already or rich couples with savings who can afford 6 months with half their income gone who can afford the longer leaves.

Red - since additional paternity/shared parental leave was introduced in 2011 (I remember it well, DH was the first in his company to take it), men (or not birth-giving partners) have been able to access statutory pay. Until this year they were only able to take it after 26 weeks where the mother had gone back to work, up to 39 weeks.

As I understand it now, the 39 weeks of statutory pay can be split equally between the parents.

Sorry if I misunderstood your post, though.

I was looking at DH's company policy yesterday. They offer only slightly above statutory for mothers (8 weeks full pay) but flat statutory for fathers/non-birth mothers). Not great really.

I'm on mat leave now and wanted to go back to work full time, but my job involves a lot of travel and long hours. I'm trying to sort out a part time arrangement because of this.

The problem for me is that mil is very against 'working mothers'. She has made comments about how we don't want dd with a nanny all day, I should only work 3 days at the most, she recently blamed a friend of friend's criminal record on her being 'brought up by the grandmother because the mother was always at work.'

My dp is great and has arranged some flexibility with his work, he doesn't expect it all to fall on me. He can't go part time though, it isn't an option. I know it's stupid but I want to go back to work full time just to spite mil (and fil who I know feels the same, he just hasn't said anything to me).

The problem for me is that mil is very against 'working mothers'. She has made comments about how we don't want dd with a nanny all day

But that's not a problem, surely? A minor irritation perhaps, having to fend off the remarks, but "we" can place DD with a nanny if "we" damn' well want to because it's our DD. Not hers. And you know the criminal record thing is just bullshit. Ask the SoS for DWP and he'll tell you it's all those families not working that cause criminal behaviour and that's bullshit too

(Funny that as a grandmother herself she is inclined to blame grandmothers for a child's lack of moral compass. I don't suppose she'd thank you for pointing that out.)

Jassy yes statutory pay. I am afraid if you live in London and have a large mortgage and pay for a full time nursery place or nanny for the older first child and baby 2 comes along one of you reverting to £120 a week statutory pay is not going to cut the mustard or pay any bills so except for the very low waged it is virtually a non right. Only the 6 weeks at 90% pay works in couples with those kinds of expenses or where an employer gives you full pay for 6 months at your £100k a year rate or whatever.

Well... we do live in London, as we did for our first - where we shared the parental leave as well. So, I do understand the costs (and planning entailed).

Not easy, but for most folk I know have taken the full year. I'm one of the few people I know so far who have shared parental leave - but as I'm the higher earner, it makes more financial sense, as well as being better for everyone in our family for us to both have a go at being the primary parent.

My point was that the statutory entitlement was identical - and what employers do (and how that stands up to challenge) will be very interesting. We'd be better off if we swapped employers - DH's company is more generous to the mother; mine has equal entitlement regardless of when you take the leave (with restrictions if both parents work for our organisation).

You're right Annie, I just have a bad habit of taking things personally and literally and now feel that whatever I choose will be the wrong choice. At the same time I feel guilty that I have the means to make such a choice when so many don't.

I see. The problem is where a company offers full pay for 6 months for a woan on a high salary and her hsuband's employer offers 6 months on the tiny statutory £120 a week or whatever it is then it is no contest who will be the one at home. If the employer is obliged to offer the generous 6 months full pay to men as well as women then you get more equality.

now feel that whatever I choose will be the wrong choice. At the same time I feel guilty that I have the means to make such a choice when so many don't.

Too much guilt!

When i returned to work i did not feel gulty about working, but i had been told i would, so i started feeling guilty about not feeling guilty until i realized how ridiculous it sounds when put like that

Football was a male sport and is only recently been gaining in popularity for women to play.

Actually Heyho, football was played by both sexes until the FA placed a ban on women's football matches being played on its member clubs' grounds in 1921, which lasted for 50 years.

I'm sure I've read that sahm is a relatively modern upper/middle class concept too.... I'm not sure on that one so am happy to be corrected.

I see. The problem is where a company offers full pay for 6 months for a woan on a high salary and her hsuband's employer offers 6 months on the tiny statutory £120 a week or whatever it is then it is no contest who will be the one at home. If the employer is obliged to offer the generous 6 months full pay to men as well as women then you get more equality.

Definitely agree with that. It would be interesting to see statistics on how much time people take off - as I say, I'm an outlier among people I know for going back at 6 months, most people I know took a full year, even though most have contractual entitlements that extended beyond 6 months, if that.

In that context - the default being to take a year (or close to it) but enhanced pay only being available for 6 months or less, equal SMP does become a factor - and should enable greater equality of choice.