Why don't feminists expect expect male parents to pay for childcare?

[FantaOra]

I am serious in this question. Women seem to deduct the cost of childcare from their own career or earning contribution to the family budget and I don't get why? Why do women do that? It seems to me by doing this we participate in the perception of women's income as subordinate to men's income. Tell me why?

In regards pension and career progression... I was already on UPS1 (Upper Pay Scale point 1 of 3, which does not have automatic progression), at a time where school funding was being cut to the bone. I could be the best teacher ever and never get promoted to UPS2, extra responsibility roles were being phased out with the roles split and put upon staff for no extra money or time, and the public sector pay freeze meant my salary was real terms reducing every year. So career progression and pay rises weren't a consideration.

Pension... Well, I'm only 34. I have a pension from my years teaching, and I'll be able to get back to work from January next year should I wish to. I've probably got another 30+ years to work, with little expectation of a state pension at all. Meanwhile we've arranged our finances so any money I make is a bonus which can go straight in to savings for paying off mortgages and topping up pensions.

So, I think it's silly to assume a woman is always screwing herself long term to be a SAHP. It's a little insulting too, the assumption that these weren't all factors taken in to account. By saying the end decision is wrong no matter what, you are alienating women and their choices.

Certainly it's wrong that women are priced out of work by childcare, but that isn't the woman who is wrong, it's society and government. Berating her for the choice she's made in the society in which she lives, rather than a fantasy utopia, is foolish.

@Lamahaha from the article, the vast majority of parental leave in Sweden can be split as the parents choose:

like all parents in Sweden, Anna and Teddie are entitled to a combined total of 480 days of statutory parental leave per child. Each has 60 days' leave set aside for their sole use, but the rest can be shared between them as they wish, and the first 390 are paid at 80% of their salary

I honestly don't think your situation is in any way incompatible with feminism, you're just lucky in that you and your partner have found a division of responsibilities that work for you - happy days!

Obviously you are free to define yourself how you like though

@Lamahaha
I don't see why what you describe is incompatible with feminism. Its not a problem for women to enjoy staying at home and men to enjoy working or to divide labour that way. Its only a problem when that dynamic is forced by circumstances rooted in patriarchal ideas against people's desires.
My DH and I have set up things to be 50:50 work and childcare and chores. We have a very equitable household. My feminist principles informed this and I wanted our children to grow up seeing that we could each do both.
However I would really like to be at home with the kids full time while my husband works. The kicker is though that would trap my DH into a situation he doesn't want - he would rather be at home with the kids full time too. We are both really family orientated and tolerate the fact we have to work.
I'm not more of a feminist than you because I work more and provide less childcare. Its feminist to value child rearing. There is so much value in raising your children and I believe anyone who tells you otherwise is not speaking from a feminist viewpoint.

@Lamahaha I just looked back at your previous post and saw that your husband sadly died. I'm sorry if my post and description of you as "lucky" came across as flippant

I don't see why what you describe is incompatible with feminism. Its not a problem for women to enjoy staying at home and men to enjoy working or to divide labour that way. Its only a problem when that dynamic is forced by circumstances rooted in patriarchal ideas against people's desires.

Exactly, and I'm glad to hear that my decision is compatible with modern feminism -- I've always hated the fact that there seemed to be a set narrative, a set of rules you had to adhere to. My mother was like that, which is why I had an anti-feminist phase. Brilliant, that it's all a bit more flexible these days. Thank you!

I know that I was extremely lucky in my circumstances, which enabled me to do both -- be with my kids when they were young, and, now, have the career that is entirely suited to my skills and temperament.

[quote muststopeatingfroyo]@Lamahaha I just looked back at your previous post and saw that your husband sadly died. I'm sorry if my post and description of you as "lucky" came across as flippant [/quote]
Not at all I also just said that I was lucky, and did so in my earlier post! He died in 2017 after a very long illness. I had looked after him at home for many years until it got so difficult that he had to go into a care home. In the end his passing was a relief he had no quality of life and no longer even recognised me. He passed in his sleep.

The excuse for the gender pay gap according to all feminist organizations is that women can't afford to work.

No, feminist organisations put the gender pay gap down to a raft of issues that include women still being paid less for work of equal value to male counterparts, unconscious sex bias when selecting for promotion, young women still being channelled by careers services etc into lower-paid areas of work (care work, child care, hairdressing, retail etc) and the fact that women still for various reasons take on the majority of the burden of childcare. Basically, because of their sex and the expectations imposed on their sex, women's work has always been undervalued and under rewarded.

@LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett

So what's your 'excuse' for the gender pay gap then?

There is no gender pay gap, Its been proven to be a complete myth and fallacy. Theres a Utube video of Cathy Newman interviewing someone where she gets humiliated even suggesting that it exists. I suggest you look it up.

The childcare was split proportionally from our wages.
It was substantially more than my husband earned at the time
We never considered his not working and I have never understood the ‘it just isn’t worth our while’ argument made
He would have been substantially affected had he not worked for 5-8 yrs.

@RonaldMcDonald

The childcare was split proportionally from our wages. It was substantially more than my husband earned at the time We never considered his not working and I have never understood the ‘it just isn’t worth our while’ argument made He would have been substantially affected had he not worked for 5-8 yrs.

To an extent it depends what the work is. I didn't want to get to work at 7.10am, come home at 4.30, then work another 3 hours of my evening and a day every weekend, and not be any better off. Quality of life has a value too.

There is no gender pay gap, Its been proven to be a complete myth and fallacy. Theres a Utube video of Cathy Newman interviewing someone where she gets humiliated even suggesting that it exists. I suggest you look it up.

No, you look it up and link to it.

No gender pay gap? Bollocky Mcbollocks.

Quality of life means all sorts of things - mostly what you wish to focus on to back up your own choices

He continued to have pension contributions made
Was promoted and stayed relevant in his field. He would have struggled to have gained employment at a similar level to when he left had he taken a career break to raise the children. Put simply he would have been viewed as irrelevant in the sector.
Instead he had been twice promoted by the time they went to school and was earning almost £35k more than when we were making the decisions.
So our and his quality of life would have been substantially impacted and for much longer had he left work to raise our children to school age.

Large breaks in employment rarely work positively unless you are retraining and studying during them.
My friend retrained and moved field entirely whilst staying at home and it worked better than had she attempted to rejoin her old employment. I was amazed by her hard work but it paid off.
My husband had no notion of doing so.

Sounds like his job is very different from mine. As I say, no one makes this decision in a vacuum.

I think it's a Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman. I quite like Peterson on other matters, but he misses the point spectacularly. There is a pay gap, but it's often mothers versus fathers and non parents, rather than a straight forward like for like with childless men and women.

There is no gender pay gap, Its been proven to be a complete myth and fallacy

Yeah, right, that's why I and tens of my female colleagues had to take our then employer to court to get equal pay. Or was I imagining the court case and the resulting 3K increase in my salary?

I call bullshit.

I think its because even in an equal partnership, and the money in a family pot, if a woman has had a career break for children, going to work impacts the family pot as the family unit has less money coming in than before after her wage is inputted and childcare costs are deducted.

Therefore it looks short term, as a loss.( not taking into account earning power once back on the career ladder, if in fact its work which has progression. Many jobs odnt)

There is no gender pay gap, Its been proven to be a complete myth and fallacy. Theres a Utube video of Cathy Newman interviewing someone where she gets humiliated even suggesting that it exists. I suggest you look it up.

That's the favourite of our old pal 'the midnight misogynist', funnily enough.

Dianaslasso you just be imagining it, probably too much for a delicate female brain

Choices aren't made in a vacuum; in addition to a plethora of individual circumstances and preferences, there's society and culture, legislation, taxation considerations whether good or bad etc.

When we had our DD, DH would have liked to have more than a few days off but that wasn't possible back then. We were fortunate enough to be able to afford me going back to work FT after maternity leave - I can't remember which of us paid our nanny's salary, but certainly it wasn't considered as anything other than a joint responsibility. However, when DD started school, having no local family for support, it was clear that two full time jobs wouldn't work. In an ideal world we'd have both dropped our hours. In practice - my company was amenable to me working half time (being aware of the importance of retention of staff) though they'd have been happier with 3/4; no way on earth would DH's have considered him dropping his hours to allow for him to take his full share of parental responsibilities. So, long hours in a stressful job, he ended up with a health problem and downshifting to consultancy .... lose/lose for him and his company.

These old fashioned societal attitudes aren't good for anyone. But to move away from them - well, some companies like mine can see the longer view and manage a win/win. I don't know how others can be dragged into the 21st century - other than somehow via legislation and taxation levers.

As far as I know, the norm for two-parent families is that childcare is another expense from the family pot, so ‘Men should pay for childcare!’ doesn’t really make sense.
More challenging is the argument that both parents continuing to work (even though it brings in less money than one taking time out) can be sensible long term, but not every family can afford to do this, or actually would want to.
My own utopia would have the majority of men and women working part time with affordable childcare to fill the gap. But I’m sure someone will be along to tell me why that’s rubbish.

Isn't not being able to afford to go back to work a pragmatic issue rather than a feminist one? I work, my husband does not, because that makes sense financially. The feminist issue I think is that generally women get paid less so this pragmatic arrangement is more common the other way around.

True feminism is the fight for equal rights. I've never met a woman who claims to be a feminist that would take that stance on paying for children.

My wage would not have covered the cost of childcare. That would mean that if I worked, as a household, we would have less money. As we were poor, that would mean we would not be able to cover essential bills - food, heating, housing. So that is what many women mean by they can’t afford to work.

In a joint household income, you can imagine it as coming from one of both incomes, but the reality is if you can’t afford to live on a lower income, you can’t afford it.

I would however advise my daughter to never give up work if at all possible, because a long time out of the workplace will damage your chances of a decent job, and if you get divorced, there is no real guarantee of pension, share of assets, child maintenance etc for former SAHM.