Working Parents

[KittyOShea]

I haven't posted in here before but definitely describe myself as a feminist.

Over the last few weeks I have seen a number of depressing threads on here about wives prioritising their husband's work or calculating their salary excluding childcare costs (only their salary not their joint salary). It seems the husband's career always comes first.

Maybe this is bad form as its a thread inspired by other threads but it's lead me to think about the societal influences that mean it's always the woman who goes part time/ quits work.

I should say here that DH and I were unable to have DC so we have not had to tackle this one but when we were ttc we had decided that if someone had to step back in terms of work it would be him as I am the higher earner and he is much more domesticated than I am. Is this so unusual in the 21st century?

Is there anything we as a society can do that changes this way of thinking?

There may not be an identified gene that makes a mother the default child carer but the fact that we carry our babies for 9 months inside us and then breastfeed them (presumably in the past the feeding would have gone on for longer as a reliable source of nutrition) means that bond might be more than just socialisation. I don't really know the answers but I know that when my kids are poorly they always want 'mummy'. When I was miscarrying the babies I lost, all I could think of was getting to my mum. I can't explain it but I really think there is something there more than socialisation.
I have been trying to find what happens with other mammals. This is an interesting quote.

'Humans are also primates. Among the primates, parenting behavior by males is rare. This isn't necessarily because males have less interest in infants, but because primate mothers generally will not allow males to get very close to their newborn. The males of many primate species have been known to harm infants. On the other hand, males also display protective behavior toward mothers and their young.'

The full article is
www.naturalchild.org/james_kimmel/fathering.html

I personally think it is biological that most mothers want to be with their children in their early years.

Maybe, DH spends a bit more time with DD than me and it's him she tends to go to when feeling ill. I'm not sure comparisons with animals are that enlightening. Maybe when they work 50 hours a week in office jobs!

Vdb I hope that the animal kingdom does not translate to humans as the fight for equality would pretty much end there with women back to being told their role is to SAH and mind the house and children.

I don't believe in 'male' and 'female' brains just brains

Regarding the bonding I can't comment. We were never able to have DC. As it happens this was much more devastating to DH than me as he is more domesticated and paternal than I am maternal.

I couldn't wait to pack in my job and stay at home for a few years I'd rather not have to work at all, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to choose to be a stay-at-home mum parent with my dc.

Interesting thread

I thought there were hormonal changes that caused mothers to feel very strongly connected to the child during late pregnancy.

The nuclear family and the notion that fathers should feel more connected or be more involved with a baby than any other closely related family member is social conditioning.

Even if there were no hormonal changes in the mother, women with reproductive choices wouldn't get pregnant unless they wanted to have a baby and care for it (combined with work or otherwise) because pregnancy is a really big deal. Men get women pregnant all the time with no particular desire to become fathers.

I don't believe in male or female brains. There is no evidence of any such thing.

But I believe there are hormonal changes that have an impact on the brains of pregnant women.

There are also different changes to the brains of anyone who spends a lot of time being a primary carer.

There must be a significant element of biology that leans towards a mother wishing to nurture. I can't provide a link.

I don't think pregnancy made me more bonded to ds. But I do think maternity leave did. It also helped me bond with other mums and children the same age as ds.
We all now work all p/t and each of us still hangs out with the others who have the same day(s) off.
DH doesn't have that.
The bonds formed in the early weeks as a new mum can be strong. I'm so grateful to the women who were there for me at that time. It's something dh didn't get.

I would assume that there are changes connected to the pregnancy and birth in the few weeks after birth. Doesn't the birth lead to an increase in oxytocin?

Doesn't the birth lead to an increase in oxytocin?

In theory, yes. However, with cesarean section and hospitals often keeping the baby away from the mother for hours (this has apparently improved, but was a big problem when I was born), I don't think we can assume that the oxytocin during birth has an effect on all women.

It doesn't really matter - men's bodies also release oxytocin in suitable situation, such as when holding a baby, so there is that. It is also proven that men can take care of small children -. if they want to.

Some mothers stay the primary carer and never leave their husbands alone with the children because they don't trust the husband.

In some cases, they are right.

That's the only biological reason I see for mothers being primary carers when the children are toddler age: The fact that a much larger percentage of males are paedophiles.
(Though there is some evidence that men who are primary carers don't sexually abuse children ... question is, is this because abusers are too selfish to do any childcare when the baby is still too young to be "interesting" to them, or is it because of some bonding effect?)

People release oxytocin when they have a warm shower or cuddle a dog.

What I'm saying is that there is a range of hormonal changes in pregnant women and post partum women, and a different set of hormonal changes in other primary carers.

I don't think anyone is arguing that men (or indeed anyone who hasn't been pregnant) isn't capable of being an excellent paper.

I think we're just recognising the particular situation of women that have given birth.

Sorry, autocorrect, carer not paper!

I hope that the animal kingdom does not translate to humans as the fight for equality would pretty much end there with women back to being told their role is to SAH and mind the house and children

But that's not what female primates and mammals do. They engage in hunting, gathering and social behaviours, as well as tending their offspring.

Female chimps stuck in a cage with their offspring tend not to be very happy.

I think it's possible to keep an open mind about the possibility that women may naturally feel more strongly about being with their children when small than men do, without assuming that means depriving women of choice, or going back to the 50s.

What if earning more money or climbing the career ladder isn't the main goal for some families?

I am an administrator, my DH is in advertising. I am on a years maternity leave and will probably then go down to part time and DH will work one day a week from home. He earns more and is doing a job related to his degrees. I quite like my job but could work anywhere and didn't go to uni.

Our priorities as a family is to pay the mortgage, live comfortably, be part of a good church and spend quality time with one another and wider friends and family.
Those goals impact our decisions.

For example DH left a bigger more prestigious firm in Manchester for a smaller local company so that he didn't have to commute. We'd rather he spend an extra hour and a half with us than on a train, even if his career might be better advanced in a city.

As for me, I am enjoying caring for DD right now and I feel like I have a few options for the future, Including getting a degree one day if I decide to.

Those of you talking about bonding - that is socialization. Just another name for it.

So - if both parents were home early on, mum feeding and dad doing other close things, then the bonding would be the same. Why don't we have that setup?

Surely better for both parents (where both are suitable) to be close to the baby and able to care for her/him, than just one?

Bonding is a form of socialisation.

That doesn't mean all the causes of why we bond with babies are socialised into us.

Why should we have that set up? Why should the default for society be that when a woman wants a baby she should do so with the father around at all? Many pregnant may want that set up, and should be able to have it, but I don't see why we should be reifying the heteronormative nuclear family as a society.

Typically in professional careers, there is a 4/5 year period in which salaries really take off and what you earn at the end of that period is relatively significantly higher than the beginning of it - more so than at any other time in your career. This period of time coincides with when most women have children, late 20s/ early 30s. As women typically have children with someone a couple of years older with them, then coupled with the trend of taking 12 months maternity leave, you typically end up in a situation where the mans salary pulls away during that period, and by the time mat leave is over, it becomes a "no brainier" for the mans career to be prioritised. There are a lot of factors that would have to change in order to see a real change in society, and even the most progressive employers are really struggling with this as it contributes to a lack of women in senior management positions.

Dh and I have what you would call high flying careers, he loves the dcs as much as me, yet I am the one who goes about doing Houdini type juggling to make sure that family life is always first. Dh just doesn't think about it in that way. I can only think it's nature.

Well, the most obvious reason why women decide to prioritise their husband's job is because he earns more

But surely there's a deeper question here: why is it that the husband tends to earn more than the wife?

Is it that men don't want to marry women their equal in qualifications/salary? I must say this is what I have observed. Men don't like their equals in that way in my experience.

Is it structural - men tend to earn more than women even in the same jobs?

Or a combination of a number of things.

Or that women are socialised to seek to compromise so as to serve both family & career. Or that women are socialised to expect less for themselves, and to sacrifice themselves. Or to see making the family as more important.

Is it that men don't want to marry women their equal in qualifications/salary? I must say this is what I have observed. Men don't like their equals in that way in my experience

My profession gets a bit of stick for boringly marrying other lawyers, accountants do too.

I went back to work full time when my son was 3 months old. We didn't need both salaries and I could afford a nanny. I could not have borne the idea of not being financially independent.

Husband paid the mortgage and I paid the nannies and cleaners. He paid school fees and I paid holidays and we split household bills on a fairly ad hoc basis.

Our situation is perhaps not the norm. Our career paths have been more or less the same but we have never had a joint account. I don't know exactly what he earns nor he what I earn.

you are right it is usually the mother who stays home/ goes partime thats maybe down to society but personally i would never have went to work and left hubby in charge .most men would not want to be househusbands i know my hubby would never have considered it no matter how much i earned .

It does seem that women generally want to be at home with the kids more than men do. I went part time after dd2 was born because I wanted more time with the kids, not because my career is unimportant. Dh and I would earn the same if I worked full time, and I am more ambitious than him. I'm lucky it's easy to work part time in my field and it only affects career progression slightly. Dh has no desire to progress but he couldn't easily work part time and he doesn't want to anyway!

Ime mothers consider working part time to be the ideal, and many change jobs to enable it. Actually about 90% of my mum friends are part time. I have one friend who is sahm and a few full time. Actually we are all pretty happy with the set up. I think women don't necessarily know what they want before they have babies. I carried on full time initially but am happier part time. If I worked more, as a family we'd be no better off once childcare was paid. On the other hand I will go back full time at some point because it'll really affect my pension.

I earn more than my husband right now abd have done on & off over the years. I don't want a house husband, although I'm sure he would be up for the challenge.
I'm also more ambitious than him. However I want to see my kids when they are babies so took nearly a year mat leave & worked a 3 day week, then a 4 day week before going back full time when DS was nearly 4yo. This is what I wanted, no matter the impact on my progression. Will see what happens next time.

So I think plenty of men marry / procreate with women who have higher earning potential than them. To say otherwise is a gross generalisation.

& yes I have also met plenty of mums through baby groups & my personal network whose partners have no interest at all in domestic life so the mum takes the hit on her career. This was usually obvious well before they had a kid tho!!!!

Contrasting with primates makes no sense unless you also plan to remove mortgages, jobs, prams and baby food/milk.

A chimp's mother has no option but to breast feed its offspring whilst she continues to source her own food climbing trees etc. The baby clings to her throughout. Perhaps she's the ultimate working mother.

We have no idea how the chimps "feel" about this; you might as well ask how they feel about tree climbing rather than an office job.