Why is it always the woman who goes part time?

[maggiethemagpie]

I never really saw blatant sexism until after I had a baby.....I'm sure it's always been there but I never really thought about it until I had kids and realised that I am very very unusual in that my partner was happy to stay home and do the childcare (luckily he has an income from property) and I chose to return to work, and do a demanding full time job. Sometimes I think we must be living the feminist dream - if indeed the early feminists dreamed of having households with working mothers and househusbands. I'm sure some of them must have. Anyway it's a great example to set my kids.

However amongst all my friends who have had kids, pretty much without exception it is the woman who's had to make the career sacrifice and go part time or stopped work. I don't think many of these women have sat down with their partner and worked out which one would prefer to go part time, and it just so happens to be the woman. I think it's a foregone conclusion that it's the woman's job. Even when both partners work full time, nine times out of ten it's the woman who is doing the nursery drop offs and pick ups. EG my boss returned from maternity recently and it's a big deal when she has to work late and get him to pick the kid up - they never just take it in turns every day or anything. Or, a colleague was forced to go part time to full time. She was really worried about picking up the kids from school on some days as she couldn't get them into after school club. No mention of her partner doing this, or if HE should ask to go part time.

I think until more men begin to consider being the ones to stay at home, things won't progress socially in this area. I know the woman has to be the one to give birth, and until shared parental leave came in recently, only the woman could take an extended period of time off work. But that's just the maternity period, which now can be transferred to the man or shared - what about all the years after that.

Does anyone think this will ever change or are we doomed, as women being the ones to give birth will always be seen as the obvious choice to be the part timer/ stay at home parent?

Fanny - poorly worded, sorry. I was referring back to a pp saying that going part-time is often precipitated by realising your career has stalled (not necessarily fairly either). Which got me thinking that it doesn't do that for men - in fact, even totally incompetent men expect and demand career progress, even after many years of employers not being that keen.

I think this is why the very common phenomenon of incompetent male manager supported by very competent female subordinates exists - women get knocked back & give up because socialisation tells them they didn't deserve it, men either have a smoother path (where competent), or keep trying for longer because they have that social support telling them they deserve it (despite incompetence), and some proportion will eventually run into a boss that gives them the promotion.

Men from "out" groups don't have that bottomless sense of entitlement IME, but they do often expect more.

FWIW, I think there are many many roles that are perceived as being unsuitable for part-time, but actually when the reason for the person doing it part-time is not childcare related that seems to be just fine. E.g. contractors doing 3 days a week, fine, someone acting up to a role for a couple of years doing it 2 days a week shared with someone else, fine, someone only available 1 day a week in the office as other (unrelated) parts of their job require offsite meetings. All examples I've seen for jobs that MNers argue part time women shouldn't aspire to.

Fanny

It's not that I don't like the term childcare, I think it is right for a childcare worker, but not a parent.
The job/role of providing care does come under both, but I feel it does children mostly and parents a disservice to lump love and caring for your children as childcare.
In addition, I pity the children growing up with parents who think their role is childcare.
I think this may be one of the reasons some men are reluctant to take on the role of sahp, they see how little it is regarded and lumped under childcare they feel it will be unfulfilling.
I do hear the term used a lot in rl too, not just here.
It's also something I feel quite strongly about too, so am glad you stated I'm not the only one.
Tbh, though I have only voiced this opinion a couple of times, when I feel it relevant.

I approve of kleethwazzle.

I felt this was a discussion worth having until you said you pitied the children growing up with parents who think their role is childcare newlife. That's rather crossing the line into being a twat.

And really, your point about men only holds if you think your views about childcare being a negative term are held commonly enough that anyone would run into them on a regular basis. This is not my experience. You should be wary of assuming the world shares your peculiarities.

Socialisation plays a massive role. Dd (dc2) is and has always been as close (if not closer) to dh as me. When she was born D's was 2.5 and a complete handful, I also knew that I was returning at 6m. So from the earliest days (about 10) he gave the goodnight (10-11pm) bottle so I could get to sleep early or he gave her a 6pm feed and I did the late feed (bf). He also split his paternity leave over 2 months, on the days he was off I would leave him dozing with dd and take D's to the park/toddler group etc. The result is that he had all those bonding feelings as well as me. D's was much more a "mummy's boy" but I set out for dd to be more flexible.

Nothing inate about it.

Fanny

Do you see your role as a parent as providing childcare?
I'd rather be a twat than take away the role and responsibilities of parenting a child for 18 years by equating it to childcare.
I pity the children because they will hear the term from their parents and believe that childcare has been provided for them throughout their former years, rather than parenting or a mix of childcare provision and parenting.

You may think it twattish but I firmly believe until we as a society stop equating parenting to child care then men aren't going to want to take on the role as sahp or go pt to spend more time with their children.
Tbh, I'm surprised more women don't object to the term, but the fact that some can see it is enough for me.

It's not innate but I think the reason I was more keen than dh to do a day at home with ds is that I have ante-natal group and maternity leave friends who do the same.
Therefore the whole pregnancy and maternity leave thing puts us in an unequal situation when making decisions.
My ds is only 2 and I imagine the effect will wear off as the years pass but it's still strong now.

Indeed I do newlife, because childcare means looking after children, and that is one of the things I do as a parent. You're allowed to not want the term used to describe what you do, regardless of whether it is technically correct or not, but I'm afraid you don't get to make that call for other people. So stop.

As for your men thing, you sound more like a bullshitter than a twat on that point. It's just something you pulled out of your arse. If I was more of a twat myself, I might say that I felt sorry for the children of anyone so arrogant that they think they get to define the terms other parents use to describe the care of their children.

Newlife - I'm genuinely not at all sure what's wrong with referring g to the time a parent spends looking after their child as childcare?

Dh and I both "parent" our son equally. But on a Friday I stay home from work and do "childcare".
We share "childcare" at the weekend.

I don't understand why that's such an awful thing to say?

Why are men put off by the term childcare? I don't think I understand your point, could you clarify?

Would it not normally be the lesser-earning parent who gives up work or goes part-time, and for that reason it seems to have defaulted to the woman? Genuine question, not trying to stir up a shit storm but with most of my friends and family, including me and dh, the men seem to be the main earners. Not saying that's right but just ime.

I earned more, and was much more ambitious, but I went p-t. Usually the other way though I think.

I agree that it's sexist but often based on wages from what I've seen in my social circle...while both partners may work full time before children in my experience the wife earns less.

It's not the case in my relationship, I earn about ten times what my DP earns and so will be going back full time.

Of course, the fact that women often end up in roles earning less than men is indicative of all kinds of sexism and gender role socialisation.

DP earns about three times my salary (in vastly different roles, I earn an average to decent amount for what I do) and I hate working as much as I hated school, so it was pretty much a no brainer for us personally.

That is one explanation that often gets offered flumplet. Usually the man is a couple of years older than the woman also, so that can make a difference. Even if there were no gender pay gap ever at all, there is an age one so logically you'd have some difference simply by virtue of the fact that the dad is on average what, two or three years older? Although I do believe women in their twenties are now outearning male counterparts, so we'll see if that holds.

I earn more than DH so me working 3 days gets us the same as him working 5.

I totally understand that the higher earner going part time makes sense. What I don't understand is why the same argument rarely applies to the father.

And I totally understand the wanting a parent at home. Again, I don't understand why this rarely applies to the father. Lovely examples of it happening on this thread, but it's not the norm, unless my experience is well out of step.

What I've seen is a default slipping into woman as primary care giver with no real discussion and, crucially, with unequal options on the table for each parent. I absolutely don't blame mothers for choosing to take the paid work out of the equation when so many are faced with childcare + wife work.

FWIW, I think there are many many roles that are perceived as being unsuitable for part-time, but actually when the reason for the person doing it part-time is not childcare related that seems to be just fine. E.g. contractors doing 3 days a week, fine, someone acting up to a role for a couple of years doing it 2 days a week shared with someone else, fine, someone only available 1 day a week in the office as other (unrelated) parts of their job require offsite meetings. All examples I've seen for jobs that MNers argue part time women shouldn't aspire to.

This absolutely. The example I gave above of a woman who works FT being told a job couldn't be done PT. Several men already do it PT but also, the more experienced people in that job work on several projects so effectively work PT on each of them.

Truly senior roles really don't need someone around all the time, because someone who is senior may be travelling for work or dealing with a more important issue at the time, or have good people working for them who can deal with any issues. I personally find working PT the biggest issue when I have very junior staff working for me who need more supervision. If they work PT as well then I spend a lot of time writing down email instructions so they know what is expected when I'm not in. With an experienced member of staff I expect them to come to meetings already having planned their next piece of work and they don't need the same hand holding.

So if you are caring for your children it's not childcare then? How weird. You can always use the term "paid childcare" if you want to differentiate between parental childcare and that carried out by professionals. The again what if it's grandparents? It's still childcare, the act of caring for a child.

I also use 'childcare' to refer to the kleethwazzle of my children carried out by our family members. That's pretty normal.

Kleethwazzle ?? What the heck?

See my post yesterday at 16.44!

Got it.

I am kleethwazzling right now (I think it's something that you can do while MNing. If not I'm in trouble )