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?

at the minute a large portion of affordable childcare is staffed by young women out of college on minimum wage. Ultimately someone has to pay for the affordability and it seems inevitably to be women

And children. To my mind the world is topsy turvy. The smaller a child is, the more we need high quality people to look after them and those people should be properly remunerated.

@Shedbuilder

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.

The early years are the most crucial in a child's education. It is the interest of a progressive civilised society to invest in this age group for the future good of society.
Workers in pre schools need to be highly trained and properly paid. It has nothing to do with staff/child ratios which should be low.
The fact that workers in this sector are poorly paid is because children are not valued in this society. That and our obsession with productivity.

Capitalism pretty much has to be obsessed with productivity, otherwise the whole banking system collapses.

But human services are very difficult to scale up.

So those complaining children are under-valued, how could a society make caring for children MORE valuable? Thats the question that would have to be answered.

@Coyoacan

at the minute a large portion of affordable childcare is staffed by young women out of college on minimum wage. Ultimately someone has to pay for the affordability and it seems inevitably to be women

And children. To my mind the world is topsy turvy. The smaller a child is, the more we need high quality people to look after them and those people should be properly remunerated.

The concentration of women in low-paid jobs - care and hair - is another reason for the gender pay gap of course, it's not all down to maternity/childcare issues.

The concentration of women in low-paid jobs - care and hair - is another reason for the gender pay gap of course, it's not all down to maternity/childcare issues.

Yet these are the jobs women choose to do. No one forces them.

I think it is sad how looking after and educating young children is undervalued. It is not valued when the parents themselves do it, if engaged in as paid work it is pretty low paid. Tbh I find it pretty degrading just to be valued in terms of my economic worth as economic worth within a capitalist patriarchal society only acts to serve the patriarchy...

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

My daughter gave up not work, but her Uni course when she got pregnant, and is still not working, her child is 2, and is pregnant again. She always says that her friends who work outside the home are constantly complaining of stress, and she herself doesn't know how they do it -- her days are full enough as it is.
She lives in the UK so she doesn't have any of the German advantages I had. But she kind of has the same attitude I had, that things will take care of themselves if you feel it's just right -- and she does.

Could you expand on the 'number of reasons'? I'm struggling to find any valid reasons why this is likely to more often be the woman than the man (single parents excepted, obv ). I know how it can happen in practice, as happened with me and DH - but it wasn't a good thing.

I don't think there is any logical reason things aren't necessarily logical! But I do believe that for the first year at least mothers assuming they are "normal" and not egomaniacs or narcissists, and that they wanted to be mothers -- are simply more attuned to their baby, and vice versa.
After all, she had it in her body for nine months; it "felt" everything she felt, "knows" her from inside out, possibly nourished itself from her body after birth. These are powerful processes, and not to be dismissed for the sake of equality. They are an entity for quite some time after birth.
The slower the detachment process, I think, the better for the baby, and possibly for the mother as well (as long as it's what she wants -- if she resents the process, that doesn't help).

(Which might be yet another non-feminist opinion!)

^^ didn;t mean to strike through the "wanted" -- should have been italics!

@veryvery

I think it is sad how looking after and educating young children is undervalued. It is not valued when the parents themselves do it, if engaged in as paid work it is pretty low paid. Tbh I find it pretty degrading just to be valued in terms of my economic worth as economic worth within a capitalist patriarchal society only acts to serve the patriarchy...

This is an important point. In a capitalist society where the 1% suck up an increasing percentage of wealth, there can be something quite radical about a person saying no, I do not wish to maximise my productivity. I am in a position to make choices, which of course do not happen in a vacuum, and this is mine: as I do not like your system, I don't see maximising my participation as a good in itself. And this is just as true for someone who wants to be valued and defined for something other than economic worth and doesn't have caring responsibilities either.

The problem of course is that we as a society do such a poor job of even recognising our reliance on women's unpaid caring labour, much less rewarding it. So this ends up being a very risky decision. To say nothing of all those who don't get choices.

@veryvery

I think it is sad how looking after and educating young children is undervalued. It is not valued when the parents themselves do it, if engaged in as paid work it is pretty low paid. Tbh I find it pretty degrading just to be valued in terms of my economic worth as economic worth within a capitalist patriarchal society only acts to serve the patriarchy...

This very "undervaluement" is an offshoot of patriarchy. I would like to live in a society where women set the values, and it's not all about money, success, leadership, big egos. We seem to have adopted the values of patriarchy.

I realised this far too late. As I said earlier, I was raised more by an aunt than by my mother, who despised domestic work. My aunt ran the household, did everything, looked after all of us (there were five adults and me in our home). She fed us and was the hub of everything. Without her we would have all had to do our own thing and it would have been chaos.
Everyone took her for granted. Nobody really appreciated her, including my mother and myself. It's only when mum died and I looked through her papers that I found information about my aunt -- not only that she had been married and divorced (I did know this but never thought about it) but that her husband had dumped her for a younger woman. In the 50's that must have been awful. Later she went on to care for the five children of my cousin, in a foreign country.

I don't think she minded the work itself, but the fact of being taken for granted, never really seen and appreciated, that I'm sure must have hurt. It always does.

My mother was actually the breadwinner of that family; she supported me and three of those adults. She was so proud of not being stuck in the kitchen with the pots and pans (that was her expression!) but she let her sister do the dirty but necessary work; like a husband who never helps out.

Maybe I am seeing things incorrectly in retrospect; maybe they were very close and mum did appreciate her and showed her. But it didn't seem like that to me. I do know that I did not appreciate her, and I regret is deeply. I don't think I ever even gave her a proper hug!

Further to my previous point regarding the devaluation of childcare I think the specialisation we are forced into through employment only goes to further serve the capitalist patriarchy. This forces us to outsource so many of the things which are necessary as part of our day to day lives in order to enable to us to work long hours. It forces us to purchase goods and services and deskills us in the process. This creates an 'expertise' which is owned and controlled by the patriarchal capitalist system. Food production, cooking, cleaning, self care and grooming, clothes production has become increasingly outsourced by a large proportion of the population. Very pertinent in the current times!

"Everyone took her for granted. Nobody really appreciated her, including my mother and myself.'
@Lamahaha, sadly I think this is a pretty common narrative.

I’m in a very fortunate position. My husband earns more than twice what I did FT. When I fell pregnant we took the decision that the nature of both our jobs was such that we’d never see her unless one of us went PT. (we had really longed for a child and she was a complete surprise after being told I would never have kids) My FT salary would have more than covered the cost of childcare (if that’s the equation). We agreed it made sense for me to be the one to go PT. We also agreed he’d make up the difference between my full and part time salary and he sorts the rest of the childcare costs. It’s an acknowledgement that I am stalling my career and making a financial sacrifice which lets him work FT and have the family life we both want. I still have to remind him about his fare share of parent-min and during lock down we have had a few discussions about my working days being ring fenced but otherwise it works well. Either I’m leading the equality revolution or I’m a glorified 1950s housewife getting pin money 🤣 our solution wouldn’t be possible for everyone but works for us.

@Goosefoot

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say re a better comparison between socialised childcare would be socialised education not socialised healthcare.
Do you mean by doctors helping the population be healthier there are more people able to work?
I used doctors as their pay particularly is a reflection of the value their skills are attributed in society (also happens to be a traditionally male role). You don't work out what patients can 'produce' and then work out whether it costs the doctor's wage to treat them.
Decent early years for children could have a huge economic return. Better educational achievement, lower crime, less illness.
I think it's a bit of a fools errand working backwards from capatalism to see how everything fits rather than questioning whether that framework is really necessary.
Look at maternity leave and pay, what is the capitalist arguement for that? Could that be extended to early years?
If you don't think there is a capitalist arguement for it, it shows it can be done.

Crikey, I'm sure there used to be a word for "male parents".

@veryvery

I think it is sad how looking after and educating young children is undervalued. It is not valued when the parents themselves do it, if engaged in as paid work it is pretty low paid. Tbh I find it pretty degrading just to be valued in terms of my economic worth as economic worth within a capitalist patriarchal society only acts to serve the patriarchy...

I don't think it serves the patriarchy. It serves the elite. Men are exploited in work as well. The idea that women being equal to men in wage work is a good idea is a terrible trap.

[quote Broomfondle]@Goosefoot

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say re a better comparison between socialised childcare would be socialised education not socialised healthcare.
Do you mean by doctors helping the population be healthier there are more people able to work?
I used doctors as their pay particularly is a reflection of the value their skills are attributed in society (also happens to be a traditionally male role). You don't work out what patients can 'produce' and then work out whether it costs the doctor's wage to treat them.
Decent early years for children could have a huge economic return. Better educational achievement, lower crime, less illness.
I think it's a bit of a fools errand working backwards from capatalism to see how everything fits rather than questioning whether that framework is really necessary.
Look at maternity leave and pay, what is the capitalist arguement for that? Could that be extended to early years?
If you don't think there is a capitalist arguement for it, it shows it can be done.[/quote]
Yes, I agree investing in kids is a great idea and probably financially worthwhile.

But you could have that with a parent at home.

I don't think it serves the patriarchy. It serves the elite.

Who are the 'elite', the people of wealth and power in a patriarchy? I would take a guess and it isn't women....

Men are exploited in work as well

A capitalist patriarchy exploits everybody. Even those deemed 'elite' have a power base built on the exploitation of others, it is blood money, which means they are corrupt(ed) and will be hated.

The idea that women being equal to men in wage work is a good idea is a terrible trap.

I would say instead that the treatment of people as commodities and viewing their worth only in terms of economic output is a terrible trap within a patriarchy. What would be fair would be to value people more holistically. Women's contribution to society is much more than simple economics. It is substantially more far reaching.

I’ve heard people say that it’s not worth going back financially . But the people I’m close to say it to justify wanting to stay longer at home with their baby -when in certain company . They wanted to go to be the one guiding and comforting their baby and it sometimes feels hard to say this nowadays - it’s expected in some groups that you’ll go back , especially when you see yourself as pro equality/ feminist. I thought I’d go back to work after a year but nothing prepared me for how much I felt attached - I used the argument of finances to convince my partner it was better for me to stay home until she started school. But it was just my feelings - the same feelings that lead you to choose to have a child in the first place , that aren’t anything to do with finances. I think you it’s a convenient thing to say.

As a single parent I find childcare prohibitive to working full time. We would be actively worse off because the childcare amount is capped, but childcare costs are not. I have to wait for school and nursery hours to reduce the bill in order to make it affordable for me to work full time. When I was with my ex I was the breadwinner

@Goosefoot
*Yes, I agree investing in kids is a great idea and probably financially worthwhile.

But you could have that with a parent at home*

I completely agree. That's part of valuing childrearing and parenting in and of itself. Happy to have a conversation about how to value childrearing within the home as well as childcare for those parents who wish to work, they're not mutually exclusive.

They wanted to go to be the one guiding and comforting their baby and it sometimes feels hard to say this nowadays

I felt exactly like this. What is more I wanted to be a primary influence in terms of the socialisation of my child. This is a great source of power and responsibility. It is about which values, beliefs and ideas survive the generations. It serves a patriarchal capitalist society to delegate this responsibility to the institutions which serve it because that's where power lies.

What is more I wanted to be a primary influence in terms of the socialisation of my child.

Very much this.