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.

A lot of generalisation there and really depends on your individual family circumstances - 1/3 of women actually earn more than their male partners......that's a fact too

It's unfair to expect men to carry the sole financial burden of a family anymore - we wanted female equality and now we've got it - which means that we re expected to put in equal contributions. So what if someone does a bit more cleaning than the other - life shouldn't constantly be tit for tat!

If you can't divvy up the housework broadly equally as a couple that's on you - doesn't mean there is financial abuse involved (I HATE that term by the way!)

Goosefoot Most of us want our kids to have friends and be included. That means we need to meet basic social obligations to facilitate this. You can take your kids to their friends birthday parties if you want and refuse to buy cards or presents ever. Fine. You will be known as a CF, unless you are very poor. And it will affect your kids.

Very few people are happy to live in homes that have just basic furniture that meets needs, but nothing to make it comfy or nice. And kids are the same. They like their bedrooms decorated with nice duvet covers, curtains, etc. I don't understand anyone who won't spend their money making their kids comfortable and happy. And I have been in plenty of single men's houses, they spend money too making their house comfortable. But you still see women spending their meagre earnings paying for this, while the man reaps the benefits as well.

Sure nothing wrong with spending money down the pub with your mates. But kids come first. If you can't do that, you should not be a parent.

I had a job when I met my husband, FWIW. Had he wanted to stay home with kids, I suppose I would have had to consider that. My job was of a different kind, mainly because I did and do not have those kinds of career aspirations.
I don't think it's a bad thing for couples to be compatible in terms of the vision for their married life, including work. So, if a woman wants to be a sat at home mom, she's probably be foolish to marry someone with no employment prospects.

I am not a socialist, but I think Marx's critique of capitalism was spot on. It's unstable, it tends to build immoral personalities and social relationships, and also it will likely destroy the natural environment. I'd not only like to see it smashed, I think if it isn't, we are doomed.

"Kids come first"

That's just an assumption that the things one parent thinks are essential are the right ones, when we are talking about what kinds of "extras" they need. Kids today have extremely busy and often constrained, product oriented lives.

I'm really not willing to say that fathers who think that their kids need something closer to what was normal in, say, 1980, are selfish people who just care about hanging out with their mates.

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.

For a while in our marriage I did support my DH. I was the main earner while he did his PhD, hence not only allowing him to have a nicer quality of life and get into less debt during the PhD but better qualifications and a better career (both in terms of financial gain and in terms of doing something he actually likes and feels is worthwhile and meaningful). I also helped him to pay off his student debt. I had more money than him and no debt when we married.

Then, when we decided to have kids (which actually he wanted more than me initially), we agreed we wanted one of us to look after them (we sort of decided what was the point if we were never going to see them). We considered it being him or me, but shared parental leave wasn't a thing then and my employer offered me 1 year of maternity leave and generous pay for the first 3 months, and his employer offered him 2 weeks, so it was a no brainer. Plus we both wanted our child to be breastfed, for the health benefits to both her and me, which obviously only I could do and which would have been difficult if I'd gone back to work and not him.

If society and the workplace was set up differently maybe that decision wouldn't have been what it was or then been set in stone but that's not the way things are. We have a joint account and all our money is joint money. I do think he feels the stress of being the sole earner at times (what would happen if something happened sort of thing though we have insurance) but the same is true of the childcare (how would he manage to look after the kids if something happened to me - again insurance helps).

I will be honest though, I had NO IDEA of the amount of work kids are. Being a SAHM is so much more tiring that my office job was. But despite being in many ways harder, I do prefer it. I feel like I'm doing something so much more meaningful than my old job. And I did a graduate, moderately interesting and meaningful job.

Increasingly, I do think b would be a good option. Because I don't think our capitalist society values things correctly, even in terms of paid jobs and too many people suffer for the enrichment of the 1% who have grotesque wealth. And because I don't think it's great for society to force women to go back to work stacking shelves in Tesco (or other min wage job) and then have the state pay for their kids to be in nursery. I suspect long term both mother and child would be happier and healthier if the state just paid the Mum to look after her own kids for the early years (0-3 say) instead.

I suspect long term both mother and child would be happier and healthier if the state just paid the Mum to look after her own kids for the early years.

I think that there ought to be a requirement for SAHPs to attend baby/toddler groups. There is so much that could be done to improve outcomes for both children and parents with a bit of education in parenting.

Just from a guy’s perspective though I have had women pursuing me romantically and some of them will do so by trying to do things for me. Wether it’s cooking/cleaning or w/e. I think it can be tough to not fall into patterns if you are not wise to it.
I've seen a lot of women fall into this situation. In the starry eyed infatuation of first living together they take on most of the housework in an attempt to prove to the man how much better life is for him with her around. When the infatuation wears thin she becomes resentful about the lack of balance but it's hard to change the situation.

What's interesting now is that I'm a SAHP for an over1 and basically there are no poorer parents doing this, whereas there were lots in the first year. They've all been forced back to work (in shitty low paid jobs). Being a SAHP is now seen as a 'luxury' only for the reasonably well off.

We are suffering financially right now (I'm not expecting help though I do think the state punishes parents for looking after their own kids) but I think my kids and DH and I gain as a family overall enormously particularly if you look at lifetime productivity and mental and physical health rather than just the short time when kids are little. Unfortunately the way things are set up in the modern corporate world, the years a woman takes out for childbirth / raising are the years she's expected to maximise her earning / career potential.

When I'm 70 years old I may regret giving up my well paid job when I had kids, who knows. We'll see. But I have been offered a couple of jobs during the time my kids have been little and because of broken nights and the physical toll of childbearing I'm not sure I'd have been able to cope physically and mentally with going back to work and being a mum at the same time because lets' be honest childcare does 50% of it at the very, very most. You're still the one getting up in the night.

So we've gone from women being forced to be only mothers and at home, to women not being able to be full time mothers even if they want to. Progress?

One of my colleagues is on ML at the moment. When she went off she was worried about managing on her mat pay as she still wants to pay her share of mortgage etc (they go 50-50 on bills and the rest ast of their salaries are their own to spend/save as they want) . She said she didn't expect her high earning DH to subsidise her.
I see it differently and pointed out how she was sacrificing a lot for them to have a child & her DH ought to be bloody grateful and pick up the financial slack.

I think it's part of being independent & 'not relying on a man' for many women and also that financial contribution is seen as more important than childcare/housework/growing a baby etc. I think some women genuinely feel they need to pull their weight financially as well as doing the brunt of household /family stuff.

So we've gone from women being forced to be only mothers and at home, to women not being able to be full time mothers even if they want to. Progress?

No. There will be no progress until child raising is valued.

Having said that, the US admissions scandal gives me hope! If parents are prepared to pay that much to secure a university place for their child, there is value being recognised somewhere!

She said she didn't expect her high earning DH to subsidise her

Does she think she should bear all the costs of the DC alone, even though the DC are her husband's DC? Why is it seen as subsidising her not paying for HIS OWN CHILDREN!

I think an awful lot of these problems could be avoided if people did a lot more communicating early on in relationships to establish if they share values or not.

We don’t live in a monoculture anymore so there are many different approaches and ideas on the optimal way to do things. It’s essential especially if one plans to bring children into the equation that you do due diligence on the person you intend to embark on that journey with.

My friend is acutely aware of how her partner treats her. They don’t have kids as yet but if they do I dread to think what will happen, but she’s doing what millions of women do all the time and is rolling the dice with her future that the man she’s with will change.

goosefoot I am older and worked with kids in the 80s. Kids in the 80s still went to activities and birthday parties. They also had freedom that would mean a visit from SS today.

Kids lives have changed since the 80s and so have adults. Fine deny kids things that are common now, but parents then should also deny themselves things that were rare then like eating out, ready meals, wine at home, more clothes, takeaways.

Or accept the world has changed and if you have the money, dont be so selfish as to deny your kids an ordinary social life for now.

Dervel There are not actually that many decent men.

Men are mostly only as decent as the society and laws that contain their behaviour.

@clairemcnam depends what you mean by decent I suppose?

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.

^
This

I think that women are still sold the idea that we can have it all - the high flying career, get married, great house, have kids, perfect mother and wife, have amazing social life. The reality is that not all of these things are compatible with each other unless you have lots of money and or great support.

How many women that work hard at school to get to university in only to then have children just at the point when they are getting established in their career. Many leave for a while to be a SAHM, become part time or take a less demanding role because their career is not compatible with being the kind of parent they want to be or because childcare costs make it financially and logically too difficult.

These are the sorts of expectations and attitudes that need to be adressed before getting into a LTR. Does he recognise the value of unpaid housework/ child rearing? Or is he an arse who only understands what's printed on a payslip? Evolution will take care of the rest!

I think communication is key, and that change on a societal level needs to start at home. If you don’t know you’re worth at home then how can you in wider society.

We agree to have equal disposable income, equal leisure time and after that to do what’s right for the kids, which might mean more contact time with one parent in the evening depending.
We’ve also agreed what’s a household expense and a household task. So using the duvet example - absolutely a household expense, buying a new one each month? Your own expense. Similarly hours spent searching for the perfect present when an online order will do? Working on internet speed, ensuring all the Christmas presents are colour co-ordinated most of these are our own expenses/time.

Nameless I agree to an extent, but I also support DP and he does me in our interests. He loves geology and we have some impressive geological rocks in our house. Yes his interest, but I am not going to quibble if we can afford it. Similarly I bought a painting I love from both our money. We could afford it at the time, so my DP was happy with this.
I know you need similar attitudes to money, but I don't think I could be with someone where everything is accounted for strictly as to who can spend what. I detest meanness, but also value savings. Luckily my DP is the same.

But yes remember working with a woman who did not earn much. Her DP spent money on going down the pub every night. She scrimped to pay for curtains, etc. Her home was far from fancy, she just wanted a home rather than somewhere with just a bed, sofa and table. But her DP paid nothing towards it.

Dervel I mean a man who actually puts his kids first and genuinely wants the best for his partner. I know such men exist, but they are not common.

@failingatlife
I think it's part of being independent & 'not relying on a man' for many women and also that financial contribution is seen as more important than childcare/housework/growing a baby etc. I think some women genuinely feel they need to pull their weight financially as well as doing the brunt of household /family stuff
I sadly agree with this and view this as an unfortunate interpretation of feminism and equality. I think some women feel that to be equal to men they must match their contribution in all areas no matter what otherwise they aren't true equals. The problem is that women are subject to different biological and societal factors than men thus making the whole premise completely misogynistic as it uses men as the default benchmark that women should be striving to meet and replicate.

I often see threads started by pregnant women who are annoyed that their partners can still go out and get drunk with their mates whilst they miss out. The responses are generally unsympathetic and along the lines that it's just the way it is. Why should the man miss out because the woman has to? The problem is that deep down I think that logic extends well beyond this specific issue and permeates all aspects of parenting. Why wake the man for night feeds if your breastfeeding or he has to work? Why ask him to help with housework when your home all day on maternity leave? And so patterns and expectations are set and reinforced that men shouldn't be inconvenienced by children or domestic matters unless absolutely necessary.

A mother funding her own maternity leave is perhaps one of the most extreme and perverse examples I can think of. The woman has not only endured pregnancy and child birth to create their shared child but also undoubtedly taken a hit on their career through having the time off and they're supposed to pay their partner for the privilege? Surely it should be the other way round? It seems some women get some weird sense of misplaced pride about being "independent women" or something, but in my book part of achieving equality involves insisting that men step up to the plate and stop taking advantage of women's biological differences to further their own interests.

I am older and worked with kids in the 80s. Kids in the 80s still went to activities and birthday parties. They also had freedom that would mean a visit from SS today.
Kids lives have changed since the 80s and so have adults. Fine deny kids things that are common now, but parents then should also deny themselves things that were rare then like eating out, ready meals, wine at home, more clothes, takeaways. Or accept the world has changed and if you have the money, dont be so selfish as to deny your kids an ordinary social life for now.

I feel like you are really missing the point here.

These are values decisions. If someone thinks they are important, they can live that way.

Some people do not value them in the same way. That is not wrong. If a set of parents do not have the same ideas about these things, or even just the same expectations, they need to talk about it.

It does not mean that the person who does not value them is selfish and doesn't care about his kids. :Putting kids first" has become big business for upper middle class and even middle class parents. When parents have differening views it can actually be a good thing, as it can tend to avoid the extremes.

There is nothing wrong with a dad (or mom) thinking, I don't think X is a worthwhile thing for us to spend our time/money on. If the other parent does think it is important maybe they have to come to a compromise.