Men whose lives are facilitated by women Part 2

[OlennasWimple]

Continuation of the other thread that got filled up

TheGrumpy yes, but I think the thing that's missing from the standard response is how much you'll run yourself into the ground working with a (in my case poorly sleeping) baby. Plus how incredibly depressing it is to work for no pay, no treats, no outsourcing of jobs. And less money than you used to earn in the same job.

Ah yes, I thought that once we had struggled through the baby years (tiredness and extortionate nursery fees) children got easier. I didn't realise then that childcare for primary aged children (especially the older ones) is a nightmare patchwork of breakfast club, after school club, random favours for inset days and snow days and election days - never mind covering the school holidays.

And then teens absolutely do need you around: they might not need their teeth cleaning for them or their shoe laces tying, but they need parenting still. (I am only jsut beginning to realise how much)

Great link oleanna

It’s not perfect here by any means, and I work for an American company who frankly bend the rules far too much, but at least we have decent legal frameworks

Here school finishes early, then they have ‘fritids’ (free time) provided at the school. They are also starting school proper at seven yo and are expected to have a key and come home by themselves at that point. We have a system called VAB (care of child) where you are entitled to stay home for a sick child as well.

I do wfh so that will be much more manageable for me (IF he gets into a school he can walk from...)

I am exhausted - I never thought it was possible to experience this level of exhaustion. Not just physical but mental as well.

I'm exhausted as well. I spoke to DH about the possibility of him reducing his hours. He said he can't.
It does concern me what we are going to do as DCs get older.

As I’ve said many times I was demoted on mat leave one and made redundant on mat leave two. It really sticks in your craw when you’ve done it all ‘right’ and you feel you’re still treated like a disposable nobody because you’ve dared to get pregnant and give birth. That’s why we need feminism. And yes, I’m going to be subsidised by my husband for a bit whilst I get my shit together and I’m sure if you met me irl you might tut as I swan off for coffee after the school run instead of rushing off to work. But to get back on the horse we’d need a nanny, possibly live in, and that would cost more than I would earn so we would run at a loss and be under huge amounts of stress and there would be no guarantee that even if I worked my tits off I still wouldn’t be seen as just a mum who’s not really committed to the job - experience has taught me that this is as likely to happen as getting the recognition I’d deserve. The choices are there but they are sometimes really shitty ones.

Thinking a bit more broadly about this issue, I was mentally working my way through the various successful politicians of recent-ish times and thinking about whether they could be called facilitated. I'm thinking of Cherie Blair keeping her legal career going, and she also had the surprise baby later on, as well as three children already

Did Samantha facilitate David Cameron? How about Sarah and Gordon Brown? I think they both stepped aside during their husbands' time at the top, so perhaps that "counts"

Obviously the role of First Lady is a little different than the PM's wife, but I wonder whether Hillary or Michelle would have recognised themselves as facilitators? I suspect not.

I'm musing whether there is something about being that high flying - and that high earning - that side-steps the facilitation-by-wife in favour of facilitation-by-staff. Or if we just don't know enough of what happened behind the scenes.

I don’t know. I don’t think anyone would have been asking Cherie Blair to make the tea in meetings or that she’d be fighting to get the plum cases when she was married to the pm - it would be for her to say I suppose. Hilary Clinton said on Graham Norton that she hadn’t realised the impact men’s behaviour can have on women in the workplace until she’d come up against Trump so perhaps very high status women are shielded somewhat from some of the shittier aspects of life. I do feel super high achieving women are held up as an example that anyone can do it if they work hard enough and not to do them a disservice but I don’t think it’s so straight forward as working hard and being smart, though it is great that you can be married to one of the most powerful men in the world and still have a demanding career and children etc.

First Lady is an interesting example. I think there are restrictions (not sure if legal or just customary) on what members of the first family can do (and rightly so, or you end up with accusations of nepotism not that it stops the current incumbent..)

I suppose there is a payoff for the flotus though - a max 8 year, more likely 4 year hiatus then the huge boost that the office gives you even years after you’ve left it.

I’m not sure what the rules are in the uk - I think Cherie Blair continued to work as a qc didn’t she?

I think Cherie Blair probably facilitated Tony by having a well paid career. An MP’s salary isn’t bad but probably isn’t sufficient for a middle class lifestyle with three kids in London.

I believe they both barristers who wanted to be MPs and they had an agreement that whoever got selected to be an MP first would support the other.

Denis Thatcher also facilitated Margaret’s career. I don’t mean that he started doing the housework himself! But he had already made a lot of money by the time they married and was able to fund a house keeper and nanny while she worked at getting selected.

An MP’s salary isn’t bad but probably isn’t sufficient for a middle class lifestyle with three kids in London.

That's a very male style facilitation, though, isn't it? Essentially what many of the men discussed on this thread have done: had a successful career that "allows" the woman to stay home (or pursue other interests)

I just googled "tony blair housework" to see if there was any record of whether he did his fair share of the household drudgery and found this gem from the Guardian. I can't tell if it's being sarcastic or just very dated (summary: Cherie complained that men don't do enough around the house, journo says that's jsut the way that men are)

Yes it is male style facilitation. That’s why I drew the parallel with what Denis Thatcher did for Margaret.

I think that most very successful people who have children are likely to have a supportive spouse.

I suppose one of the reasons for the thread is that there is an imbalance between the sexes and it often seems to be a woman supporting a man in his career.

But it can happen the other way around too. Maybe more often the Denis Thatcher way than the SAHD way I don’t know.

OMG that Guardian article, how weird

Argh, Olenna, that Guardian article! I'm going to have to re-read Delusions of Gender to cleanse my brain!

There was a thread a while ago abiut very successful women, posters on here who were earning £300k+.
All of them were saying that their DH were just as successful.
But all of them also said that to be able to do that they had a paid army behind them. A nanny for the dcs, housekeeper or a live in housekeeper. In effect people that they delegated all the work that women usually do (housework, mental load etc...) to someone else.

So yes, the bottom line is that it’s impossible to do everything. You have to delegate. And it’s either men delegating to women or paid work.
I suspect this would be the same if a man ended up a single father. To still be successful, they would delegate to a (paid) nanny.

I am reading 'Who cooked Adam Smith's Dinner' by Katrine Marcal at the moment. I'm only on chapter 2 but I'm guessing it's going to have a lot to say about 'facilitated men'.

I think that’s the heart of facilitation for me. If you were paying for a nanny, housekeeper and PA you would have to be earning a small fortune (how many families earn 600k+ a year?) as that work would be acknowledged as requiring a skilled and dedicated workforce to ensure it was achieved to a high standard. But when it’s a sahm doing it, it’s apparently worthless and a waste of resources. In addition, the facilitated man who gets the benefit of what, 100k of services for bed and board, then has the capacity to play on the level of the 300k earners and also gets the benefit of being seen as a saint as he keeps his wife.

For me the difficulty is how to you get to be a higher earner whilst you don’t have the money to pay for a nanny, housekeeper and pa? Is it even possible?

You get there by not having children, or by having a partner who will take care of all of that Handbag - that's generally the only way.

One thing I've noticed is that while part time is touted as a positive thing, what usually ends up happening is that the woman goes part time while the man works all hours and it actually turns out that the woman has the absolute worst of both worlds - she has to do about the same amount of stuff at work, for less pay and in less time, and she's still responsible for everything around the house and also has to do that in less time. But because she's part time apparently she has it easier. It's total bollocks.

LeCroissant I agree. I read time and time again on MN that a couple "took the decision together" about working arrangements post children. Yet 95% of the time it just so happens that this seemingly equitable and joint decision leaves the women with a low-paid / PT job and / or a less successful career or no career at all. Very rarely the men. Odd that isn't it?

OP "And then teens absolutely do need you around: they might not need their teeth cleaning for them or their shoe laces tying, but they need parenting still. (I am only jsut beginning to realise how much)"

I hear you! I too was surprised at just how much. Just put the phone down from 17yo DD1

I think that in some ways the mental load of being a parent increases as your children get into adulthood, being supportive and being there for them takes a lot of Focus and mental energy
if the woman takes on most of that role then it frees the man up to focus on his career

I’m often having the fantasy of giving up doing any of the mental work (and housework etc...) for a month and let H getting in with it.

A day isn’t enough. A week isn’t long enough either because you can still drop balls for a week and not see the répercutions.
So no thinking about schools, meals, shopping, planning budget/hols etc... as little mental work as possible.

Wouldn’t it bliss??

Raging I have that same fantasy too.* I agree on the timescales. Imagine how the economy would suffer too! As well as the domestic sphere.*

Blummin bold fail again. Sorry. Apparently it's being sorted

An Inconvenient Truth 2

Yes to this lecroissant - totally agree

"One thing I've noticed is that while part time is touted as a positive thing, what usually ends up happening is that the woman goes part time while the man works all hours and it actually turns out that the woman has the absolute worst of both worlds - she has to do about the same amount of stuff at work, for less pay and in less time, and she's still responsible for everything around the house and also has to do that in less time. But because she's part time apparently she has it easier. It's total bollocks."