Expectations of mothers includes financial abuse?

[clairemcnam]

We all know that mothers do much more than their fair share of housework, childcare and cooking than fathers in the vast majority of relationships. But there also seems to be an increasing expectation that as well as this, mothers should be contributing 50% of the family costs. Given that mothers are on average paid less than fathers, this means that mothers are being expected to contribute financially a larger proportion of their earnings to the family pot than fathers.

So mothers are now being expected increasingly to contribute more than 50% to raising a child on all fronts.

Actually I'm not sure it is that common that women do most of the housework anymore, certainly not amongst my friends. My husband does the shopping, most of the cooking, 50/50 the cleaning... It's the same for most women I know under 30. He also does all the 'admin'...!

iT is common. All the research, and there is a lot of it, shows that mothers do more of the housework, childcare and cooking. Glad that is not your experience, but it is very far from the norm.
It is also very hard to judge from the outside with friends. I though with a friend that her and her DP shared equally, until we went on holiday together and shared a house, and it was very clear he did not.

I think women are subject to competing work/family pressures in the way that men simply aren't. Girls are being encouraged to forge careers and build their earning potential in the same way as boys but many women find this unsustainable once kids come along for lots of reasons with socialisation and biology both playing a part. This can come as a shock to both men and women when suddenly the concept of equality seems complicated and difficult to achieve.

Understandably some men will be keen to cherry pick the best bits of equality so encourage their partners to contribute equally financially whilst retaining the traditional elements of motherhood that can be hard for women to shed.

The whole idea of a family is that a group of people now operate as a kind of unit. But we've been moving away from that over the years. In some places even tax systems don't really look at it that way anymore

They do when it comes to reclaiming child benefit if your partner earns over 50k - THEN they treat you as a unit. But when it comes to anything that might benefit the family (such as tax credits if a parents rather than unrelated adult provides the childcare) THEN all adults are treated individually.

And certain strands of feminist thought have encouraged it as well, because they feel women need to emphasise their individual financial power to be equal to men in society.

I'm fairly new to feminist theory but this is surely why we need radical feminism? Because this devalues the things that actually separate women from men, the pregnancy, the childbirth, the breastfeeding, - which are exactly the things which are the reason women aren't paid as much, and get sidelined when they're of childbearing age, etc etc. And it completely devalues the cost of parents doing the childrearing and, I would argue, of children themselves.

There could be different ways to handle the financial side, but it has to be negotiated and agreed upon before marriage, children etc.

1. All income is family income by default. So maintain 3 accounts - 1 joint and 2 personal ones for each half of the couple.

If wife earns 1000 and husband 2000, both put their earnings into family account. If family expenses are usually about 2500, then each person gets 250 in their personal account. They can save or spend how they wish. It's their pocket money.

1. Contributions based as a ratio or percentage of incomes. So if wife earns 1000 and husband earns 2000, then they might agree that contributions are in the ratio of 1:2. So if they are buying a new washing machine that costs 300, she pays 100 and he pays 200.

Bit simplistic, but I'm sure people can get creative with ways to split costs. It's stupid to think someone who earns less can somehow contribute 50% of the costs. If a partner is adamant about it, it makes him look pretty stupid and petty. I'd question how suitable as a long term partner someone was if he had that kind of attitude.

No idea about how to deal with housework problem.....

Understandably some men will be keen to cherry pick the best bits of equality so encourage their partners to contribute equally financially whilst retaining the traditional elements of motherhood that can be hard for women to shed.

Male cherry picking is horribly widespread. Father takes DC to sport while mother cooks lunch for their return is a typically male fair division of childcare responsibilities!

I guess what I am saying is I do see women being taken advantage of often and whilst there are obvious cases where it’s just obvious there seems to be thus cultural default which can be difficult to get away from.

I think this is a really common cause of household stress about distribution of work. People just move in together and start doing stuff that seems what needs to be done. Often it is what they think is important or what their parents did.
Not only might they be simply repeating patterns that don't make sense for them, often they don't really even talk about what needs to be done.

This is a factor a lot where the man spends his discretionary money on what he wants, and the mom spends hers on stuff for the kids. Sometimes they never really sat down and worked out what they want to do with their collective income for the kids, the women starts paying for stuff she assumes they should have, and the man never thinks about what she spends her own money on. If there were differences in their own households with certain things they go unsaid so both sides think they are just doing what is "normal." I find a lot of men don't consider as many things necessary either, with lessons or family stuff, so it becomes even more uneven.

Nonny The proportion approach leaves the lower earner, usually the woman, much worse off. I would not want my partner to be worse off than me. Not my idea of love.

This was the expectation in my relationship with my ex. We paid 50% of the bills each, although he worked 25 hours more than me a week, and I did 90% of everything else.

I should have charge him a child minding fee for all the times I stayed home with ds to let him work ft/socialise nearly every night. Taking away the time ds spent at school or staying with his grans, he'd have had to pay at least £1000 per week (sat 126 hours at £8 an hour) to have that level of freedom, without me. If I'd billed him the going rate, for each service I did for him for him free, he'd owe me tens of thousands by now.

I find a lot of men don't consider as many things necessary either, with lessons or family stuff

Yes I see threads on here where the OP is saying they spend the small amount of money they have on club costs for kids, cushions and things that make their house nicer, and stuff like presents for birthday parties their kid is going to, that the DP does not think is necessary. In these scenarios the DP is inevitable spending a lot of their money on hobbies for themselves.
And yes I think men like this are awful.

@Goosefoot
I think for whatever reason (biology, socialisation, a mix of both!) mothers tend to prioritise children in a way that fathers don't. This can be seen in the way that money is spent and effort is expended. Men will dress this up as women making a choice to prioritise in this way but I would suggest that lots of mothers feel compelled to put their children first.

Also seeing a lot of women saying they saved up for their maternity leave out of their earnings only. As if growing and giving birth to a baby is a bloody holiday that only the woman needs to fund.

I think this can be complicated to judge. I see a lot of couples where the two incomes are allocated quite differently. One might be used for all the fixed expenses, and the other things like savings of all kinds, kids lessons, things there is more flexibility with. It makes a lot of sense especially if one job is less secure than the other. Often the second income is the one weighed against things like maternity leave or daycare, because unless it is at a certain level those things may not be possible. IN itself I think that kind of weighing has to happen, the important thing is it's a family decisions.

This can come as a shock to both men and women when suddenly the concept of equality seems complicated and difficult to achieve.
Women and men have been sold kind of a bill of goods with child related issues. A lot of young people don't really understand the practical or emotional elements involved. I had a male boss, who when I was discussing with him what I wanted to do for a maternity leave, suggested, quite nicely, that I not set anything in stone, because I might feel a lot differently about leaving a 6 month old baby once I had one - they were still very little. I thought he was very old-fashioned. But - they are very little, they do still need a fairly dedicated carer, and the work of the household does still need to get done.
It's hard when you've been told the answer is for women and men in a marriage to have pretty much the same role.

@huggybear do you have children though? Many of my friends and I were relatively equal before DCs, and maybe even after dc1. But after taking on more of the house and child work during maternity leave, often some of that stays with you when you return. Then with more DCs and as they get older, maybe you have the more 'flexible' job, so you do the daycare pickups, so then you do the cooking and meanwhile he has been more present at work so gets a promotion, so then is working more hours, so you keep track of payments and booking for after school clubs, plus the pta stuff is all run by mums so he feels weird being the only man volunteering on the weekend etc etc etc until suddenly you are Queen of the Hearth, but still holding down a paying job too.
If it wasn't too risky for our family and given DHs health, I'd be a sahm in an instant.

I'm fairly new to feminist theory but this is surely why we need radical feminism? Because this devalues the things that actually separate women from men, the pregnancy, the childbirth, the breastfeeding, - which are exactly the things which are the reason women aren't paid as much, and get sidelined when they're of childbearing age, etc etc. And it completely devalues the cost of parents doing the childrearing and, I would argue, of children themselves.

I don't know. I can't say I find nay strand of feminist theory I have read very satisfying where it comes to motherhood. Radical feminism may come closest, but I still feel that there is something important missing. I can't put my finger on what it is though.

Yes I see threads on here where the OP is saying they spend the small amount of money they have on club costs for kids, cushions and things that make their house nicer, and stuff like presents for birthday parties their kid is going to, that the DP does not think is necessary. In these scenarios the DP is inevitable spending a lot of their money on hobbies for themselves.
And yes I think men like this are awful.

I would not say that those men were necessarily awful. Some may be, but I think some of the women you are describing aren't all that great either. In fact to some extent I think that can be a healthier view, and the best outcome may be if there is some kind of compromise.
There is wanting your house to be comfortable and pleasant, and then there is competitive spending to keep p with your neighbours or what you see on tv decorating shows. Buying presents for every kids birthday party is not necessarily good for anyone, it's not good for the environment, and it puts a lot of stress on families with tight budgets. Kids can be over-commited to activities parents feel they are supposed to go to, but really, there is no need.
It's a generalisation, but while many parents are both bamboozled by these things, dads seem a little better at ignoring those social pressures. Sometimes they can ignore them too much, social obligations aren't worthless, they are important to community. But it really should be a discussion between both parents about what is necessary, and how it will be paid for.

I'm fairly new to feminist theory but this is surely why we need radical feminism? Because this devalues the things that actually separate women from men, the pregnancy, the childbirth, the breastfeeding, - which are exactly the things which are the reason women aren't paid as much, and get sidelined when they're of childbearing age, etc etc. And it completely devalues the cost of parents doing the childrearing and, I would argue, of children themselves.

I completely agree with this. And I would take it further: women have toiled for the continuation of the species forever, bearing children, nurturing them and caring for men and homes. Our current unsustainable ecological situation is the logical end point of a society where the work and effort and long term thinking that will allow the continuation of our species has been totally sidelined.

I will always pay 50% of the bills as its my home, my children and my responsibilities also.

My husband and I are a team and we share that 50:50 even now on maternity leave.

I don't understand how some people think doing some vacuuming, washing dishes is the equivalent of financial contributions. My husband does those things and pays 50% as do I.

It's quite archaic to think a man should pay more than 50%. If you can match your 50% then you're living beyond your means.

It's quite archaic to think a man should pay more than 50%.

Given that women currently earn far less than men on average while being more quailed than men on average, it is hardly archaic to believe that women should not be expected to contribute as much as men financially. Women are not individually responsible for the societal forces that work against their equal financial remuneration.

Men will dress this up as women making a choice to prioritise in this way but I would suggest that lots of mothers feel compelled to put their children first.

I think you could change your 'men' to 'society' and 'government' too. Basic good parenting should not be a mother's (or indeed father's) 'choice'. It really pisses me off. If women stopped doing all they do for their kids then we'd have even more families referred to already stretched social services, and even more children with mental health problems. And of course the government does let loads of men get away with not paying for their children and seemingly put very little effort into getting the money from them. Which ends up costing the taxpayer huge amounts money. But seemingly no-one cares when men are reckless parents.

Our society does not value children or childrearing at the moment at all and we're storing up huge problems for the future, in my opinion.

Goosefoot If your kids get invited to a birthday party, you have to buy something for the child's party.
And making a home nice with a few cushions, nice duvet covers, etc is not keeping up with the Jones. It is wanting a nice house to actually live in.
And lots of kids want to o to clubs and activities, and they cost.
Sure easy for dads to ignore social obligations if they don't put their kids first. I bet they don't ignore social obligations that actually affect them though? So I don't meet many men that don't buy their round at the pub for example? But ignoring that social obligation would have an impact on them, so it is met.

Dandeloin Then you and your husband are agreeing to reproduce sex inequalities within your marriage.

Our society does not value children or childrearing at the moment at all and we're storing up huge problems for the future, in my opinion.

As a society, we have been living as if there were no tomorrow for decades. The mental health crisis is a result of this, just as the ecological crisis is.

Actually I'm not sure it is that common that women do most of the housework anymore

Yeah it is. Loads of reports and surveys on it and certainly it’s the case most women I know do more childcare and home administration like organising children’s school and activities.

In my own 30 year relationship, we just put money in one pot. Nobody gets out of chores or childcare if they earn more. We’re a partnership and that is the case in every respect. I used to do way more housework than my partner but after 2 years living apart because of the unfair balance, we got back together in a much more fair way. I encourage every woman I know to not run herself ragged doing all the chores and childcare simply because she earns less. I have only one female friend who doesn’t work outside the home, who therefore does more of the other side of things.

I don't understand how some people think doing some vacuuming, washing dishes is the equivalent of financial contributions.

See I don’t understand why anyone values financial contributions more than other contributions like raising children and making a home for your family. I find it very outdated and old fashioned.

See I don’t understand why anyone values financial contributions more than other contributions like raising children and making a home for your family. I find it very outdated and old fashioned.

I agree. And what is the point of financial contributions and being rich if your family and home are not well cared for?