Men whose lives are facilitated by women - how did this happen??!

[windygallows]

Now that I'm in my mid-40s I look around at my peers and am astounded that so many men my age have their lives facilitated by women: wives who don't work or who work part time who manage the household and make lunch for their DHs and do all the childcare and prop men up. It's just amazing how many men have a leg up by this support.

And they become blind to what it's like not having that support. My boss has a female PA, two female assistants, and a wife at home who looks after the household - leaving him totally supported and completely free to focus on his job. He thinks he's responsible for his success and doesn't understand why others can't mimic what he's achieved or even the time he dedicates to work.

How did we let this happen? How did we create a situation where so many middle aged men have such a leg up over women because they've been given so much support?

I've put this in Feminism because for me this is a feminist issue. If anything this situation it creates an absolute imbalance in life but also in the workplace, with men given much more freedom to dedicate to work and devoid of many domestic responsibilities that burden women.

I've also put this in Feminism because I'm trying to avoid the usual comments by women like 'We're a team' (referring to her and her DP) or comments like 'It works for us' or 'DH works hard and makes enough for both of us - should I go out to work just because you want me to.' blah blah blah I appreciate too that some women benefit from a set up where a DP/DH is 'looking after you' when you then facilitate/prop up his life in return, but I'm not quite sure it's really helping anyone in the grand scheme of things.

For context I'm in my mid40s, single with 2DCs and work FT and definitely frustrated when I see the advantages that 'facilitated men' have in the workplace and in life.

Of course the glass ceiling exists. I don't know the answer to this question so I'm just putting it out there - If we could strip away thousands of years of patriarchy as if it never existed and there was truly no concept of a glass ceiling to certain jobs - e.g. Global CEOs, options traders (i.e. jobs that require "over and above" hours and commitment and a certain ruthless mentality inc. not seeing much of your kids), do we think, all things being equal, there would be an equal number of fathers and mothers applying for those type of jobs? Or even men and women pre-children? Or is there something about the mentality of men that makes them more inclined towards those professions?

In the type of work I qualified in there is no glass ceiling - in fact it's predominantly female.

I love to see women who get to the top in any area and I have a few female friends who have done just that (thanks to the help of "facilitating" SAH husbands or full time nannies). I'm not sure that everybody would actually want to live that kind of life though. We all only get one life and people find the optimum balance that suits them.

My point Vashna was that there isn't any need for jobs to involve ridiculously long hours and never seeing your children. It's possible for work to actually be sensible and to take into account that people have lives and children and elderly parents and hobbies. The current setup is based on men who never wash their own clothes. It's become entrenched because it's been around for so long. But it can change and it should change IMO.

LeCroissant yes but the world is not set up like that.

Ideally both partners would work part time while still enjoying good career progression and spend lots of time as a hands on parent.

That is unachievable for most familes.

So we look at other options.

And giving up work was worth the financial risk. The benefits were worth it.

When the Romans wanted to subdue new area, they generally found the best way was to make sure a small percentage of the local elite got all the benefits of the Roman way of life - the majority still lived generally as they had done but the people who controlled the power were romanised and thus they entrenched their hold.

There was also the backup position of the might of the roman military machine that could wipe you out of course, but they found that by letting a few people into the relative luxury of provincial roman life, you actually didn’t need to flex your muscles that much.

Some parallels here perhaps? I can imagine those British romanised matriarchs being utterly convinced that the system was working for them fabulously and that the serfs were just bitter and shrill and should stfu.

vashna if you’re in the position of having no mortgage, and funds to ringfence in trust for education. Then you are likely in the very top few percent of the population income wise. Your personal circumstances are not reflective of 95%+ of the uk population.

I’m in that top 5% too - and yet I remain quite cross about this facilitation issue.

And I can’t help feeling quite cunical about your assertion that your dh would never leave his kids up the creek. Go have a rummage on the relationships board. They all say that. And then they’re hiding assets, and fighting tooth and claw to give the exw as little as they possibly can, with horribly little regard to he kids.

What I see happening a lot around me is women in their 30s and 40s, dissatisfied and bored because they end up home all the time with their children with very little variety and freedom in their lives while their husbands are off expanding their careers. However, what then happens later on is that the women often end up with very close relationships with their children and once the children get older/leave home the women manage to get some sort of work life going again. So as women enter their 50s they're getting a new lease on life. Meanwhile, the men have had so little practical contact with their children they hardly know them and they're burnt out from work. So as men enter their 50s and 60s they're grumpy, insular and cut off.

It's quite a nonsensical way to do things. Too much missed out on for no good reason.

'LeCroissant yes but the world is not set up like that.

Ideally both partners would work part time while still enjoying good career progression and spend lots of time as a hands on parent.

That is unachievable for most familes.

So we look at other options.

And giving up work was worth the financial risk. The benefits were worth it'

Yes, the world isn't set up like that. That's what this whole thread is about. My point is that it might not be set up like that now, but it is possible to change it. We are the adults at the moment, we are the ones influencing how the world is, so if we want change we have to bring it about. Saying 'oh that's not how it is' is just a cop out.

From what I'm reading, most are in agreement that men are facilitated.
But the SAHMs posting seem happy to play that role, in which case - crack on.

But society is just not set up for those who want to work and/or NOT facilitate.

I do disagree with the criticism of people raising individual experiences though. Surely that's what this all boils down to - the choices we all make within the societal constructs which govern our lives?

If you look around my workplace, it appears like women do OK. There are plenty in senior roles, with a reasonable number at the top level.

But the vast majority are either divorced or don't have kids. Individual decisions I know, but a clear sign that they had to make those choices that men at the same level did not.

Surely the question is how do we create societal change that creates a level playing field enabling us all to have the life we want?

In the late 1800s/early 1900s women could have said 'we can't vote, but that's just how it is.' But they didn't, they changed things. That's what feminism is about, looking at how the world is, and working to change it if it's not as good as it could be.

LeCroissant re women's votes.

Yes of course. But it took a few very brave women willing to risk it all to have it change.

And while I agree the current system is flawed I am not prepared to put my head in the firing line.

Just to add, I have absolutely no problem with any woman choosing to be a SAHM - I was a SAHM for a while. That's a choice each couple should make for themselves. My issue is with a system that forces many women to be SAHMs whose enormous contribution to society is totally ignored while the men the SAHMs facilitate are given awards and huge pats on the back for their success, success they could never have had without the support of the woman who earns nothing and cleans his socks. The issue isn't with the choice, it's with the implications of that choice within the patriarchal society we live in, a society that values men's work and treat's women's work as invisible.

'And while I agree the current system is flawed I am not prepared to put my head in the firing line.'

Fair enough. But the least you could do is acknowledge the women who are putting their heads in the firing line on your behalf and on behalf of future women. Don't join in, that's your choice, but don't jeer either.

Windy - what I am trying to say to you is that women are not actually stupid. If you facilitate something it is generally because it is worth facilitating.

SAHMs do think about the future. Nobody gives up their financial "independence" without a great deal of consideration. The truth is, It does happen that there are women who still don't need to work after a divorce because there was enough wealth accrued during the marriage. Or if they do choose to return to work, there is not an imminent rush. Maybe there was no mortgage and all kinds of financial arrangements can be in place. People do not generally put themselves or their children in precarious positions. Please don't presume this is always the case.

At the other end of the scale, there are women who can't afford to return to work due to the childcare costs and this is a different matter entirely.

Even if you both work, a separation would mean going from double income to single and this may not be sustainable, especially if the man was the higher earner.

Speakout, I am afraid you totally miss the point. It might have worked great for you because your DH did not swan off with his fantastic salary leaving you in the lurch with three kids and no income. But other husbands do do that and there’s is very little to protect the woman. It is objectively not a good position to put yourself in staying at home and giving up paid work to make yourself financially dependent on another person. The gamble might pay off and it might be fantastic, or it can cause ruin for the SAH spouse (who is a woman in 99% of cases) and there is little she can do to take away that risk. Trust Funds are great when there’s money to put in them. This is not the reality of the majority of the population in this country.

I don't even understand how it happens, and I would love to avoid it for my dd. I was not brought up like this, yet I have become a facilitator. That's all I am, a facilitator to 5 other people. I look back, and wonder how it happened. I would love for it not to happen to my dd.

No I don't miss the point.

And your point is far from objective or simple.

We all takes risks. When we marry, when we buy property, when we fall in love, when we have kids.

It was of paramount importance to me that I did not use day care when my kids were young.

'The truth is, It does happen that there are women who still don't need to work after a divorce because there was enough wealth accrued during the marriage. Or if they do choose to return to work, there is not an imminent rush. Maybe there was no mortgage and all kinds of financial arrangements can be in place. People do not generally put themselves or their children in precarious positions. Please don't presume this is always the case.'

The number of women for whom this is true is incredibly small. A very large proportion of SAHMs are SAHMs because they can't afford to work. As of 2012 non-resident parents (the vast majority of whom are men) owed a total of £3.8 billion in child maintenance arrears. That is £3.8 billion that (mostly) mothers need to support their children that they weren't getting. That's the reality of the situation - men leaving and women left without the money they need to feed their children.

'It was of paramount importance to me that I did not use day care when my kids were young.'

Both my DH and I work full time. We use 6 hours of childcare a week. It is possible to work and not use much or any childcare.

"Stop doing the wifework then!"

Yeah sure, I'll just sit and watch while our whole life fall aparts

Do these people really think that if we just stopped doing it, our DPs would just hop on to it and pick up the slack? Fucking hell.

lecroissant how do you manage that, because it sounds fantastic!

Le

It's possible only if you can find jobs that work around each other, which can be difficult, especially if you are lower down the career ladder and don't have a lot of flexibility.

We run our own company, so that helps :)

My two are in school, so that obviously makes it easier. They're both in childcare after school till 6 two days a week then whoever is less busy collects them the other days and works from home/in the evening. We basically work around each other.

I used to facilitate DH. Not any more. I told him either he did his part or we divorced. Luckily he chose the first option.

Windy - what I am trying to say to you is that women are not actually stupid. If you facilitate something it is generally because it is worth facilitating.
Really? Surely this is the point of the whole thread. Are you saying women doing all the legwork is because it's worth it for them?? Really!???

SAHMs do think about the future. Nobody gives up their financial "independence" without a great deal of consideration. Some do but many people make romantic choices without considering things like long term income. Head over to the relationship board and read about all the women who went passively into marriage without thinking. A huge percentage of the population turns a blind eye to things like pension and savings because they dont think about the future - some might argue it's human nature to put one's head in the sand.

speakout and melody

Can you explain the point you’re trying to make? Because it seems to me that you’re saying that because your setup works for you, no one else has an issue they can feel dissatisfied with. Is that correct? You feel that your individual experience as a happy facilitator means that every women who facilitates is happy and there’s no issue here to discuss?

For me, the absolute crunch point in my relationship came when I asked DH to facilitate my work (we worked separately at the time) when our youngest was a baby. He told me he couldn't, he didn't have time, blah blah blah which I accepted - of course I wasn't going to put our main source of income in jeopardy right? Except that he then came home not two weeks later and said that he had this great new opportunity. I asked when he was going to do fit it in. Oh, no problem, he said he had loads of time on a Tuesday. Well, I can't describe how I felt. He had 'loads of time' for his own opportunity but no time at all to help me to work. It hit me full force then that he considered his work super important and my work a sort of inconvenient hobby that I had to fit in around everybody else. That was the point at which I refused to be family facilitator any more. I facilitate others just as much as they facilitate me. That's how it should be.

I think one of the personal dangers of being a facilitator, something that definitely happened to me, is that you start to lose the sense that you are a meaningful person in your own right - that you have wants and needs that are just as valid as anybody else. A very good friend of mine moved house away from all her friends because her husband wanted to. Then when they moved there is became clear she would have to work (she'd previously been a SAHM) so she started looking for termtime, flexible jobs, none of which she actually wanted to do. I asked her why she was the one always doing things she didn't really want to do, while her DH had a job he wanted in a place he wanted live. It genuinely hadn't occurred to her that she could say 'actually I want a job that I enjoy and you're going to have to step up and make that possible.' Thankfully she did do that and she's doing incredibly well.