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.

See this is where I disagree bumpity. While women can indeed birth children and men can’t (duh) and that fact has been used to oppress us, I don’t think I as a woman - and by extension my personal manisfestation of feminism - should be defined by that. There is no reason that with societal changes that I’ve discussed upthread that parenting can’t be equal. The fact that theoretically I could spawn a human is neither here nor there to me - I still have an element of personal responsibility that does not exclude me from looking after my own financial well-being. Surely saving up so you have spending money during maternity leave is just sensible? I’d personally find it demeaning to have to be paid for. In many ways I’d actually rather date someone who earned less than me so I always retained that power. I don’t set ‘what men do’ as a benchmark, I just don’t think equality is best achieved by seeing female biology as some kind of handicap that exempts us from certain areas of responsibility and life.

Goosefoot Fine if both parents genuinely decide these things together. But what normally happens is the dad declares these things are unnecessary so he won't pay for them, so the mum does.

When a mother is pregnant and then gives birth to a baby, which she then breastfeeds, she is working for both parents at a job she cannot delegate. Surely it is quite all right to let the baby’s father take the lead providing financially for the mother in order to do his bit?

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.

I think this is difficult. I understand things wanting to seem even - on the other hand, why would the dad wake up to breastfeed if there isn't anything he can do? I always felt that it made more sense for him to sleep and maybe let me get a nap later the next day.

I have four kids and raised two others as well as my own, so when the youngest was born I was a pretty laid back mom, and my husband was an old hand with babies. But having a tiny infant I suspect will almost always be more intensive work for the mother, for the first three months anyway, maybe the first 6. And I think it is harder for newer parents to overcome that, and these days many people only have one or two kids.

There is something to be said for just accepting that for some seasons of life, there will be differences and inequalities in the sense of your day to day existence. There is a way in which you have to think about that, so things don't get really unjust, but you also have to realise that there is no real expectation that things will be equal for everyone. There is a way that can lead to a kind of toxic unhappiness, I see it in pre-teens a lot, where they think it is unjust that they don't get every advantage others do.

If we are going to think in terms of "independence" in everything, the father should pay the mother as he would have to pay for childcare etc if she were to die. Say a nanny makes $40,000 a year. The parents split that, so the father should pay the mother $20,000 while she is working for him as a nanny.

There is her spending money.

Fine if both parents genuinely decide these things together. But what normally happens is the dad declares these things are unnecessary so he won't pay for them, so the mum does.

I don't think that is particularly common. Lots of kids do activities and such and the parents both pay, or it comes from mom but dad pays the mortgage, or whatever. Sometimes the dad might be really unwilling, but sometimes the mom enrols them even if the dad is really against it.

If either parent is determined to do what they want with no comprise, that's a jerk-ass attitude.

This is definitely and expectationbthat is common. It cones to to people not viewing domestic work as a form of financial contribution.

It comes to to people not viewing domestic work as a form of financial contribution.

Yes, and it’s ridiculously naive.

@snoutoutandabout see that’s a bit unhealthy though. Preferring to pursue relationships where there is a power imbalance in your favour, thinking that you have to ask for money you are legally entitled to, funding it demeaning to allow your OH to be the main earner, not recognising that raising children is a responsibility (a big one). This all seems to be rooted in deep materialism and mistrust.

Goosefoot So if the dad does not want to pay for activities the kids really want to do and he can afford, it is fine for him to just say no, even though the mum wants them to go? So the mum then has to pay?

A marriage should not be like that.

My husband pays for everything and even employs me for 8 hours a week and pays me for this too. I don't contribute financially, but obviously save us a fortune in hired help.

@snoutandab0ut
I don’t set ‘what men do’ as a benchmark, I just don’t think equality is best achieved by seeing female biology as some kind of handicap that exempts us from certain areas of responsibility and life
My fundamental belief is that women's biology makes us different to men and this will make us behave differently at a class level and potentially adopt different roles. This is a handicap when viewed through the lens of our current patriarchal society.

Your response can be to ask women to play men at their own game and focus on their careers in the way that men have traditionally done so, but the odds are stacked against women once they become mothers and the biological and societal differences really start to kick in. Also we have to ask the fundamental question is this what mothers as a class want to do?

Sweden which has a very high rate of mothers returning to work, also has an incredibly high rate of women off ill and retiring early on grounds of ill health.

Females are different to males because of biology and biology alone.

Well we are told that is what women want to do. I am inclined to think though that we need to think about who that really serves.

Who really gains, if our economic structure favours both parents going out to work, even if the work is taking care of the kids of those other people? What this really means is who gains by the expectation that there will be two incomes in every family?

Children have to be cared for in any case. Productive work, in the home, in the community, is productive - whether or not anyone gets paid. The value of the work is there in the outcome.

But in paid work, some of the value is passed on to the employer. That doesn't happen if the work is unpaid.

But in paid work, some of the value is passed on to the employer. That doesn't happen if the work is unpaid.

And to the public purse through taxation.

Surely having a choice is a good goal?

I’m so grateful I have the choice to work or be sahm and glad to have a fully supportive partner (who would have done shared parental leave/sahd if I didn’t have An antisocial stressful job). Flexible working is a great benefit - it would be great if it was more widespread.

People choose their partners and would hopefully have talked about these things before settling down. But sometimes unfortunate things do happen and people change or are not who they seem. I guess negotiation and compromise are sensible in this situation. I think some kids would prefer a strong family unit rather than their activity.

Choice is really tricky, because as a society, some choices by individuals negate other choices by individuals.

There has been a debate in my country for a number of years now about bringing in Swedish style daycare program, so all parents could go to work without cost of care being an issue. This would free parents to go to work.
The party line by supporters is that parents would have the choice to use this freedom or not, but of course it isn't that simple. For one thing, if I as a mum would prefer to stay home, it is a lot more difficult to make that decision if it is such a stark financial loss. Not only do I lose income, seniority, pensionable time, I am not saving childcare costs.

And I think most of us who are older have seen that as the two parent working model has become expected for everyone - even when they are higher paying jobs, costs, especially housing, have also gone up. It's become more difficult to make the decision to live on income even apart from the loss of income, people just can't afford it.
It also affects people like me, who have young kids and take care of two or three others in order to supplement staying home. Something which is good for the kids, who are in a stable home environment, the parents who don't pay much for it, and for me. If there was free care, that would not happen.
It drives me a little crazy that an argument against this idea is that poor people have always had to work two incomes. Yes - and it was hard on their families!

@goosefoot - that is true. But I guess it would benefit those who currently are sahp who would want to return to work but their salaries are less/similar to childcare costs.

A better carer’s allowance would be good. We are going to be hit by a huge need for elderly care in the next 20 years. This used to be met (and in some cases still is) by sahm ‘housewife’ who also would also sometime care for relatives children (eg if parent died). I don’t think the govt really thought through the implications of losing this unrecognised labour when they wanted to increase the size of the workforce.

I believe that if a person is willing to be carer/sahp - this personal link to the person cared for is usually more positive than institutional care (though not if it gets beyond the ability of the carer). I suppose the tricky thing is how to recognise this.

I agree the Government has not through the impact of losing unpaid carers. My parents and in laws did a lot for their parents. Both myself and my siblings will all be working full time when my parents need more help. They have no assets and no savings, so it will cost the Government.

The kind of economic modeling that leads governments to conclude that it is economically desirable for children and elderly people to be cared for in institutions rather than by families or by private domestic employment (nannies, maids etc) is very bad at capturing the reduced quality of care in institutional settings.

Yes, I've been thinking about the elder issue as well. My kids are getting a little older, but my husband's parents are now in their late 70's. They are independent in their own home, but it certainly won't last.
It's something I think about in terms of having a second career. If I train for something new, I might not end up being able to work full time anyway.
It's a real time commitment even with paid care. My grandfather lived in seniors' housing until he died with paid help for some personal care. But my mother still spent a lot of time dealing with financial things, taking him shopping, going with him to doctors appointments, etc.

Older people do live in care without any family output at all. But their quality of life is lower. But family support I suspect often delays people going into homes or prevents it altogether.
I know a friends mum who gets paid carers visiting. But she helps her mum with mail, paying the bills, buying clothes, etc. It keeps it all ticking over. And it would cost the government a lot more if she was in a home. Most people don't go into homes, they manage at home with a mixture of paid help and family help. I think this will change.

I suppose one way of doing it would be giving people deemed to require care an allowance which they can spend how they wish on care (eg family member or outside agency). You would have to be v careful of relatives exploiting this though - v tricky as some older people never want to say if anything is wrong. Perhaps a mix of a once weekly visit from nhs worker (to check situation) and then family/private/public care.

This is what already happens, but it is for help with washing, eating, dressing, etc - basic care. No way are people going to get given more money to pay for other care costs. Most people barely get their basic needs met. Even though care workers are very low paid, care for the amount of people who need it is very expensive.
We actually need informal unpaid care for our liberal capitalist system to work. Christ knows what is going to happen.
My parents would both struggle to live alone without any help, but together they manage - what one cant do, the other can. But when one of them dies, the other will need help. They won't meet thresholds for government funded paid carers though, and they have no assets. So I know I will be working full time, and somehow trying to make sure they are okay. It won't be easy.