Men whose lives are facilitated by women Part 2

[OlennasWimple]

Continuation of the other thread that got filled up

Sorry, that post should have been addressed to wishingandwaiting - apologies, woman1107, I think we're agreeing with each other.

A consequence would be that When marriages broke down, it would be 50/50 custody in every case rather than the current situation

That’s the default here in Sweden. 50:50 access.

If it’s an amicable divorce with reasonable parents apparently it works well. It’s almost impossible to get single custody though even if a partner is violent, so that work less well...

There are inherent risks associated with different choices, and these risks accrue differently to the individuals concerned and again affect the family in a different manner again.

It boils down to whomever focuses on career risks less contact with their offspring upon relationship breakdown, and the individual who is focused on the children compromise their own financial future.

I think another problem is that issues are rarely ironed out in advance I suspect down to biological pressures. Irrespective of patriarchy, socialisation and culture a man will be free to make the decision to focus 100% on his career and have children in his 40s or even 50s. A woman simply cannot asses her life in quite the same way.

This hands a tremendous amount of power to men in relationships as prior to children I notice women can be reticent to downplay their expectations of their men once the children arrive, for fear the man may dislike the terms and want to hold off on starting a family or perhaps having one at all.

What will bring parity is medical advances that trully level the playing field so women can continue to be fertile for as long as men.

A woman simply cannot asses her life in quite the same way.
1970s feminists and ordinary women would have been amazed and appalled that we'd be saying this in 2017. But you are right.

Same in France Anatidae with the same sort of problems too.
Interesting,y they are both countries where both parents are working usually. Is that a reason why it is assumed that both parents are equally involved (unlike the U.K.?)?

I have an issue with the idea of primary carer. Surely, if both parents are involved in the same way, get up at night for the baby, take care of them at weekends etc... they are BOTH primary carer?
If we were going only by the number of hours we spend we our dcs, then a CM could well be the primary carer for working parents. And we know they’re not.
So being a primary carer is much more than the number of hours you spend with them. It’s how much you are involved in their life, how much responsibility you take as a parent, the decision you take for their future etc....
In a situation where dad is at work is leaves all the responsibility to mum, all the visits to the GP, the dentist, the hospital (see a thread going in atm about a woman who was left in her own at A&E by her H because ‘it can’t be that serious’, all for the dc to spend several days in hospital...). Decisions about the school, taking the dcs to activities at weekends, playing with them, dressing them etc etc. Then yes I can see how the father has a bond with the child that is much weaker than the mother. (And they may well not want to be involved any more than that and be happy with EOW).
But surely it doesn’t have to be that way?? You can still have a very strong bond with a child even when you are a working parent. Even when the other parent is more ‘involved’ (as in more hours) You can know What is their routine, when they are going to a party, who are their friends. You can be involved in choosing the best school and take them to see the GP. Play with them and establish a secure relationship.

I really think that this idea that there is only one primary carer is rooted in the patriarcal organisation where women are solely responsible for the children. It so happens that now some men are actually SAHP, the situation can be reversed. But I don’t think it would reflect the same reality than when a man is at work and a woman is a SAHP in a 1950 setup.
I think we should be careful about that actually.

Hmmm. But especially with small children, time spent makes a difference. I don't see that the parent who's barely there in the working week (me, in our case) can possibly be of equal importance in the child's life. I know who DD's friends are, I know who the dentist and the optician are, I take equal responsibility for stuff at weekends, and I would say she and I have a strong bond. But when push comes to shove, if she's ill or has a nightmare, she wants her dad because he's the rock-solid constant in her life.

If you were both working, it would be different, and I agree it would be possible to have two primary carers, and 50-50 would be a good starting point. But that isn't what we've got, and it certainly isn't what a lot of children of facilitated men have got.

It's been great seeing this thread continue but I wonder if we need to talk more about the importance of 'calling out' the facilitated men. This seems absolutely vital to addressing the issues.

How do we make it more clear to the facilitated men at the top that they are, indeed facilitated? Earlier in the thread I mentioned that I'd mentioned to my manager the 'army' that he has behind him, and it went down like a lead balloon. But calling out the support men get, men in our personal and professional lives, is so vital to making the invisible visible.

But how can it be done? And do we need a 'Name the army of women that supports you' campaign? :)

The idea of primary carer I think is linked to capitalism. It's not just about that, but it is quite influential. It helps a capitalist society to thrive economically if there are people who are fluid in the workforce. Women taking time out, working part-time, doing evening or weekend jobs etc are convenient stop-gaps that help the economy. They're then available if needed during times of boom, or other situations like wars, when more people are needed.

Of course, it takes patriarchy mixed with capitalism to make it women who mainly fill those gaps, but even if we had a society where there was no difference between men & women, there would still be people who couldn't/struggled to get full-time career-like jobs. We can't all be high-fliers & capitalism is a giant Ponzi scheme that requires a large number of people at the bottom of the system, who still buy into the system, in order to function. That's why it works better for a family if one person is facilitated - you're maximizing the potential for one of you to get ahead, otherwise you risk both of you falling behind. The big problem is that if the relationship ends, the money stays with the high earner, instead of it being split evenly among ALL the family, so that a couple with 3 kids are seen as 2 adults, not 5 people.

If finances were split along a 4/5 and 1/5 line do you think men would still have affairs and walk away so easily, leaving a woman to raise 3 kids on less than half the money he has?

windy making men pay for the army and/or removing it, would make them see it.

Friends of mine were getting their finances reviewed and the husband was really surprised to be told that he needed life insurance for a much lower amount than his wife. His salary was a much lower amount that would have to be covered than the amount it would cost to replace her, as she was a SAHM to 3 kids. It just hadn't occurred to him that she was effectively contributing more financially than he was.

I do wonder if there should be some way to show the cost of being a parent, e.g. on tax returns have a 'virtual' amount that a parent is contributing. But it can vary so much for each couple that I'm not sure how it could be standardized.

windy I’m not sure.
With H, I’m talking (maybe too much!) about inequalities, about respect etc...
I’m pointing out when things are not ok as well as refusing to take responsibilities for things I shouldn’t.
Or rather I am trying.
Because I’m also often feeling I’m hitting a brick wall and I’m the one to pull and pull in one direction and that I’m getting exhausted from it.

At work? When I was employed, I know there is no way I could have even mentioned it! And that’s the huge benefit of me being self employed. It’s just me and i dont have to deal with this shit!

But overall, I’m actually feeling I’m failing completely in that front. Both on a relationship pov and on a parenting pov (some my teens, both boys, expectations make me scream tbh...)

Oh the idea of the life insurrance is a VERY good one actually. It puts numbers on something that is normally seen as just normal. It gives it a financial value in a way that isn’t usually done.

I'm increasingly interested in the relationship between (in)equality and economics. There are actual numbers that can be put on the effect on Africa of European colonialism. It gets scary very quickly when you look at what equality would actually look like. The standard of living in many countries would drop dramatically. We really wouldn't an NHS in the UK anymore.

But that's where it links to capitalism. A capitalist system is a pyramid system, with everyone fighting to get off the bottom layer. A more communal/social system is more 'fair' but much, much, harder to run. After all, there isn't actually a world-parent who stands over us making sure that we all get the same size piece of cake.

As much as I have huge issues with capitalism, it is a system that works more easily than others. Give it a good sprinkling of socialism (which, actually, all countries do. There's no 'pure' capitalism anywhere) and it sorta kinda functions. But, mixed with patriarchy, and women will be less well off and more vulnerable. Then we have to decide whether to try and work within the system for our own personal gain (facilitate our personal men) or to subvert/overcome the system (and hit our heads hard on that glass ceiling).

We had an interesting life assurance cover conversation along those lines. DH, "we only need x cover, for the mum's wages", myself and FA, "em, no, we need to provide full time childcare in addition to part time wages", DH, "Oh, yes, I suppose so". I am worth a lot more than my wage it turns out, thanks for reminding me of this, I had completely forgotten this conversation from a couple of years back.

I've just been doing some research into the first public conveniences in the UK. It's always thought to be Thomas Crapper but history must not forget George Jennings.

He sired 15 children by two women (his first wife having inconveniently died). He left on his death a sum of £76,000, a handsome amount. He most certainly was facilitated by the women in his life.

(It was an unfortunate accident with a bin lorry that ultimately killed him)

The idea of primary carer I think is linked to capitalism. It's not just about that, but it is quite influential. It helps a capitalist society to thrive economically if there are people who are fluid in the workforce. Women taking time out, working part-time, doing evening or weekend jobs etc are convenient stop-gaps that help the economy.

Exactly. Capitalism relies on unpaid labour and a combination of biology and patriarchy has provided the rationale for why women should provide this and not men.

But capitalist patriarchy has mixed a trick in that it doesn't appreciate women's role and trivialises almost any female-dominated area/hobby/gathering. If only they had appreciated us more maybe we wouldn't have been so goddamn rebellious!

windy making men pay for the army and/or removing it, would make them see it

Kickass the thing is many men do think they're 'paying for it' (whether a PA or a wife at home) so think it's part of a package that they have invested in and deserve. I just find it amazing how quickly men take it for granted though.

The thing is it's almost impossible to raise this privilege with men - I suppose because having a discussion about privilege is awkward and forces reflection and acknowledgement of privilege. So calling it out with people I work with is a no-no even though I'd love to do it. I work with some very average men who have been facilitated beyond their capabilties.

Even in my family I can't raise it. For instance my Dad would find it really insulting if I suggested that his success might be partly due to having a wife at home and a full time maid.

It just becomes impossible to discuss outside this forum without it being insulting and/or without sounding bitter.

another part of this is the emotional cost. Maybe I'm unlucky in who I know, but the men I do know who have high-level careers, seem to just carry home the dregs of themselves to their families. I'm sure a good part of this is because it then justifies going out for drinks/playing golf rather than emotionally investing in family life, but I do know too many men who arrive home 'exhausted' and then 'need' a drink/food/rest etc. Kids have to be kept quiet etc so that Dad isn't annoyed. It makes family time all about them & their needs, under the guise of being too tired from work. Yet, spending time with their kids (that their wife does every day, so easily, as she enjoys being home with them) is also too tiring at weekends.

Quite frankly, I've never met a successful career man (even ones who are known for being so great to work with) that I've actually liked and respected as a human being. they've all been attention-seeking drama queens.

It just becomes impossible to discuss outside this forum without it being insulting and/or without sounding bitter.

That’s exactly how I feel too. It’s such a hard thing to explain without coming across as a whinger because everyone seems to have bought into this “anyone can make it if they put their mind to it” illusion.

Perhaps a less threatening way to introduce it might be an example of a man genuinely acknowledging his wife's contribution?

I'm thinking of David Eddings who after many years of best-selling fantasy series, announced that his wife's contribution meant she really deserved recognition as co-author and their later books are published as David and Leigh Eddings.

under the guise of being too tired from work

I don't think it's a guise, I think many people are genuinely too tired from work, especially if they work long hours under the pressure of supporting their family on 1 income.

I come home tired from work and my job is easy.

I don't really get your point. You're moaning men who work long hours are too tired from work to invest in family - assuming he needs to work those hours to make enough money, then the only option is for the wife to also work so he can work less. You can't have it both ways, relying on someone's income but expecting them to come home from work fresh as if they just got up and stick to 9-5 only. The more senior one gets the more stuff depends on you, you're gonna get tired.

If he is needlessly working long hours then fair enough, there is a guy at my work like this who works himself to death because he just CAN'T SAY NO and there is a shortage of people at work to lead projects, so they pile it on him because they know he won't say no. It's shit on his wife and kids but he's not a bad/horrible/drama-queen person, he just can't grow a backbone and say no to more work because he sees it as very important. I think in his culture work comes first, which is sad, but (not stereotyping) I've seen it a lot with everyone I've met from his country. 1 woman worked a week after her leaving date, unpaid, just to finish her projects. Different culture.

Basically, we need to BREAK THE CYCLE and set good examples and be the change we want to see.

but Yolo - many of these facilitating wives DO work, they just can't actually focus on their career so are often pt or in a lower-level job so that they CAN spend all the time with the kids.

I was saying that of the men I know, it seems that ALL of them find work sooooo exhausting that they can't be expected to do anything except work. Whereas many many women work part time, less prestigious jobs, or even if they are a SAHM, they still do almost all household/childcare stuff over the weekends.

It's a double whammy - looking after children is super easy, women have it lucky to be SAH to take care of them. But ask the man to spend time with them at the weekend, and oh no, he's too tired/stressed because looking after kids is hard work.

I have just met SO many men who are all sweetness & light at work, always willing to stay late, go the extra mile. But they never make it to the kids' events, or get home for bedtime, or clear up after dinner yada, yada. If being a SAHM is the easy job, then being part of it at the weekend isn't asking too much. If it is a hard job, then women should be respected for it. You can't pretend it's easy for a woman but impossible for a high-achieving man.

KickAss, agree completely. I also recognise the men in your descriptions.

About communal child-raising: I've wondered that myself. Isn't that how things happened in hunter-gatherer days? Dumping all of the childcare on 1 woman all the time seems inhumane considering the insane amount of nurturing the kids of our species require. If were like seals who just abandoned our young after 4 days of suckling - sure, no problem

Child rearing methods vary massively in different tribal populations and different societies (there’s a very good book on this called cherubs chattels and changelings.)

The only way that sticks out as being very unusual is the ‘isolated parent’ method so prevalent in the West.

KickAssAngel I see this a lot too.

Things will only change when 'women's work' is respected and valued. Someone upthread mentioned default 50 50 shared care for divorced parents. This would be a good start.