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.

TBH, unless you have DC, it’s quite hard to grasp what caring for them entails. I had two live in relationships, before my DH, with no children. Domestic issues were very minor.

What I also find incredibly ironic is the amount of people who’ll cry ‘money doesn’t have to change hands for something to have value’ to justify the idea that women should be exempt from financial contributions in some situations and yet would baulk at the idea of a socialist society where the power and impact of money was truly reduced or eradicated, ownership ceased to be a thing, inheritance went straight to the state etc. you can’t want all the perks of capitalism but also want to trade in skills and services.

I have to say, aside from the fact I just deeply know that I don’t want kids, one of the many many facets of not wanting them is because I don’t WANT to take that responsibility. I resent the very idea and intend to spend the rest of my life living to my schedule and mine alone.

Just wanted to say “same”.

That makes no sense. You can believe in trade without attaching a monetary value to everything, purely by virtue of recognizing that some tasks are “unoutsourceable” and not quantifiable in £.

I... intend to spend the rest of my life living to my schedule and mine alone.

I would find that so very lonely.

I'd find spending my life running about after other people utterly horrendous but I don't criticise people who want to do it!

You don’t run around after other people. You do things with them. It’s wonderful!

I would find that so very lonely.

I don’t. I still have a partner. Friends. Family.

What I don’t have to do is caretake for others.

I am responsible for myself; they are responsible for their selves.

The existentialist side of me says we are all alone. But I can choose who to be “alone” with and how.

What I don’t have to do is caretake for others.

Nor do you have anyone to caretake for you.

You don’t run around after other people

So you don’t make them breakfasts, or take them to the doctors, or go to parent teacher nights, or make sure their homework is done, or they have clean socks for school tomorrow?

But literally everything DOES have a monetary value in a capitalist society, that's the point. Even the people who work as housekeepers and cleaners and get paid for it still have to go home and clean their own houses, which they don't get paid for. It's an unavoidable chore that literally everyone has to do and claiming it has any economic value is just false. I don't buy the whole 'oh but it enables the higher earner to have a career' line either. If both parties were in part-time roles the economic value would largely be the same because the reduction in the higher wage would be made up for by the increased number of previously unpaid housekeepers in the workforce

And as FeministCat said at no point did I say I don't have friends or relationships. I do, and they're great, and we all take responsibility for ourselves

Nor do you have anyone to caretake for you.

Well, I don’t need a “caretaker”. I have people who care about me, but I don’t need them to caretake me.

And if I need assistance as I get ill or age, I have a bank account for that.

Thanks though, I aways love collecting a “but what about when you get old” square on my childfree bingo sheet.

Yes but you don't have kids. You are right as a woman without kids or a dependent ill or disabled relative, then yes you have no need to care take anyone. But children do need someone to take care of them.

Interesting piece in The Atlantic (US equivalent of the Spectator or New Statesman, in between those two political extreme) about men and household tasks. It says the current male / female split is 35/65 on household tasks and childcare
Atlantic piece

Also suggests that until men step up more on the household front, female progress in the workplace will continue to stall. It’s a vicious circle: the woman takes a step down to take care of kids, her earnings drop, husband becomes breadwinner, she feels guilty about not contributing financially, she does more at home, she does less at work and so on.

Obviously this isn’t as big of an issue for couples without DC but the earnings disparity can still be a problem, I assume.

So you don’t make them breakfasts, or take them to the doctors, or go to parent teacher nights, or make sure their homework is done, or they have clean socks for school tomorrow?

We eat breakfast together (everyone gets their own breakfast in this household). Doctors appointments and parents evenings are part of doing things together (health, learning) and are usually pretty interesting - health and education are, after all, fascinating from scientific and political perspectives. Laundry is boring and therefore a cleaner can do it!

Not sure what you're getting at really - my expectation is that if a couple are married or living as married, all income is joint income regardless of who brings it in. Each family is different and will work out who does what for themselves, but that's about the time they spend at work, not the money they bring in, surely?

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.

Well, I used to make zero money, and now I rarely make enough to meet tax exempt status. I guess we should go live in a box, since my husband earns that vast majority of our income.

Or - it could be that there are value in other things than paid work.

"Even the people who work as housekeepers and cleaners and get paid for it still have to go home and clean their own houses, which they don't get paid for."

Unless they have someone else doing it for them/they expect to do for them.

My ex now lives like a pig in shit, but when he lived with me, he was super critical, and expected me to do his laundry etc, it took me years to put my foot down and refuse to do it, yet I don't remember ever agreeing to do it 100% of the time, it just crept on me favour by favour, until suddenly it was my job.

A few older ladies we know started to make remarks about me "not taking proper care of him" towards the end of our relationship, as he got really scruffy without me to sew buttons back on and take stains out of things for him etc. As if he wasn't fully capable of doing that shit himself...

Hmm it just depends on individuals. Not like that in our home. I'm a SAHM, and my DH works Monday - Friday and is out of the house 6am - 7pm. So it makes sense that I do the lions share of the childcare and housework. It's 50/50 at weekends.

I contribute zero financially to the house, not even child benefit because we have to pay it back. There is no expectation for me to contribute financially. I guess I save us the cost of paying for childcare, if that counts.

Everything is shared here. Responsibilities and money. I wouldn't have given up a decent career to be at home if that wasn't going to be the case.

I still consider myself a feminist and I absolutely intend to raise my daughters to share my views. I made an educated choice and I'm happy with it.

But literally everything DOES have a monetary value in a capitalist society, that's the point.

You are quite wrong. What about the negative externalities (pollution and other environmental impacts etc) of our energy supplies? No one has paid for those and they have done monstrous harm. If we’d factored in the costs of the harm, our capitalist society would look very different. The point is that many things are invisible to the naked eye and we only realise later on when harm is done that there was value destruction.

I have a hard time considering it better for people in general, and women in particular, to be paid for cleaning other people's homes, or taking care of other people's kids, instead of taking care of their own homes or kids.

There is something very sick about the idea that is more empowering. Talking care of the other kids, the other home, ultimately empowers the people paying you to do it. Taking care of your own kids and home is about empowering your own family.

There is room for flexibility in this - I do childcare for other people as well as my own kids, and it is a very good arrangement for everyone, including the kids. But taking that idea to its ultimate end. I know a lot of professional families where the husband and wife are both doctors or lawyers. And they hire a woman, usually from the Philippines, to come and live with them to take care of their kids. She sends the money back to her own kids who live half-way around the world, and if she is lucky sees them once a year.

That's global capitalism and it's values aren't values I will promote or attempt to live by.

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.

Not all obligations are good obligations. If dads who thought birthday party gifts ran kids birthday parties, we'd all be better off. (Though, lots of moms hate these too, they are maybe more inclined to cave to the social pressure.)
And sure, there is nothing wrong with buying some cushions or a duvet. But as long as you don't need those things to keep you warm ,if they are things you like, and enjoy, that is a personal preference. Not a better or worse one than valuing sharing some pints at the pub with friends.

I'm a woman, I'd much prefer the latter, even though I also like a nice home. Is my view right, because I am not a husband? Or wrong, because I think like one?

I think you are really missing the basic issue, which is that married people don't always value the same things, and often there is no objective right or wrong answer to that. When one or the other thinks their view is the only one, then it makes it impossible to negotiate a fair solution.

I would genuinely like to know, if those who are completely reliant financially on their husbands would a) be happy to be the sole breadwinner themselves or would have begun dating their husband if he was unemployed/a low earner and b) would support a socialist society involving a universal basic income, abolition of property ownership, exchange of services rather than money and goods to enable more people to opt out of the workforce.

I am passionately in favour of many elements of B), btw.

I know a lot of professional families where the husband and wife are both doctors or lawyers. And they hire a woman, usually from the Philippines, to come and live with them to take care of their kids. She sends the money back to her own kids who live half-way around the world, and if she is lucky sees them once a year. That's global capitalism and it's values aren't values I will promote or attempt to live by.

A friend of mine has moved to LA for her job. Her DH and their 2 DC have stayed in the European capital in which the family is based. The DH travels a lot for work internationally so various retired Philippina housekeepers are paid to stay with the DC for the weeks there is no parent at home.