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?

@veryvery

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.

I suppose it does surprise me a little that the 'Feminist' perspective (in quotes and big-F) is that it's better for women to work, be independent and delegate childcare, for this reason.

Like a poster upthread who said "what about what's best for you?" - whist I understand the sentiment it can seem as if the selfishness of some males is something that women should aspire towards.

Plus, socialisation is massively influential, as we know, and we all have gender biases. Where do the children of feminists pick up their gender biases?!

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.

Yes.

Look at maternity leave and pay, what is the capitalist arguement for that? Could that be extended to early years?

The capitalist argument for maternity leave and pay is that as more of the workforce gets more skilled and thus difficult to replace, it's of benefit to invest in them and their ability to continue working. You want to be able to continue to harness their productivity. That sometimes means adjustments and incentives. There's also a capitalist argument that there need to be more: it's pretty well known now that in the UK we forfeit lots of talent and thus revenue when women (as it usually is) end up pushed out of the workplace or not using their abilities to the fullest extent.

This obviously isn't true of all workers, some women going on maternity leave are much more expendable than others, but politically it would be impossible to only extend statutory maternity pay and leave to women who are productive enough (although saying that, women who only earn very marginally don't have the same entitlement).

And yes, I think these arguments can absolutely be extended to good early years care. We don't tend to make them because it's easier to kick the can down the road. A political party ploughing funds into making early years care and education fantastic is going to be voted out of office well before the results become evident. In a way, a purer capitalist system than we have would do a better job at recognising that.

Not read the full thread, but I am a feminist and I do say this sometimes. My reasons are that when you're looking at a household budget, you need to weigh up how much each person going out to work "costs" the household. Given that women are a) usually the lower earner, b) have just been off on mat leave and so earning even less, c) is likely to be pushed aside immediately upon returning to work because they are a woman with a baby (even if they dont want to be), the father's job is the often the safer bet in that moment.

Here, full-time childcare for 2 children under 3 is £2,400 a month. Most people, certainly most (young) women can't afford that out of their take-home pay. So the "family budget" is better off without the lower earner working.

Of course, this is only temporary, as costs will drop a bit once one child turns 3. But then you need to have a parent available to do pickups at awkward times. Or pay a fortune for wraparound care.

But realistically, as long as childcare costs what it does then many women will struggle to work.

It is a feminist issue. The "fault" is not with individual women trying to balance family budgets, nor is the fault with feminists who recognise the environment these individual decisions are made in and 'deduct childcare only from women's salaries'. The fault is with the system and society that backs individual women into this corner, then blames their individual choices for their inability to get themselves out of that situation.

In my ideal world, childcare would be more heavily subsidised and employers should start expecting men to be an equal parent who also has childcare responsibilities.

Both my DH and I work FT, flexibly, and share childcare. We each have jobs that pay relatively well and we are trying to maintain this balance, but it's tough. And I'm lucky that we can make this choice. I know most can't.

In my ideal world, childcare would be more heavily subsidised and employers should start expecting men to be an equal parent who also has childcare responsibilities.

For my daughter's sake, I would like to see her living in a system that does not penalise her choice to be a full-time carer for her children:
taxation changes that mean a family with one carer pays much less tax; pension benefits for the years she is a full-time carer; pension benefits in case they should ever divorce (touch wood!)

If child-care is subsidised, so should stay-at-home parents.

She is already thinking about relocating to Germany, where she would have all of this.

Of course, this is only temporary, as costs will drop a bit once one child turns 3. But then you need to have a parent available to do pickups at awkward times.

Yes, the free hours can be something of a red herring in the context of getting back into the workplace. They're useful as assistance with childcare costs, but because they're so often at weird and wonderful times and term time only, they don't necessarily facilitate the SAHP getting a job in themselves. Very often they're going to need to be backed up with some paid hours, and we know not everyone can afford that.

It is a feminist issue. The "fault" is not with individual women trying to balance family budgets, nor is the fault with feminists who recognise the environment these individual decisions are made in and 'deduct childcare only from women's salaries'. The fault is with the system and society that backs individual women into this corner, then blames their individual choices for their inability to get themselves out of that situation.

This is a perfect summary.

[quote Broomfondle]@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.[/quote]
No, but I think the conversation is quite different when you put it in the context of what's best from kids and parents, outside of a capitalist construct. I have doubts that large scale socialised daycare would be a good solution to that, for example, it's a solution that supports capitalists, not families or children.

The other elephant in the room is that many feminists talk about freeing women from being stuck with childcare through giving mothers access to the workplace, at the same time they prefer not to have male childcare workers.

What do you think is best for kids and parents outside of a capitalist construct?

Arguing for good quality, child centred, accessible early years care is not simultaneously arguing that it is better for parents to be in work.
I don't believe the feminist ideal is having all mothers in the workplace, but I believe we will be closer to the ideal when we have men choosing to stay home and raise their children.

Yes. DH did some solo childcare for the entire period we had preschool aged DC, except when I was on mat leave. It hugely benefitted his parenting and relationship with the children. Ironically, as he was also discriminated against at work because of being part time, he also got some valuable insight into what happens to so many women due to caring responsibilities. I think things would look different if more men had these experiences.

[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]
I dont think you're using the right comparisons. A doctors pay isn't just plucked out of the sky. They are paid, not based on the worth of those they treat, but on the skills of their individual labour, which are the result of many years of training and the acquirement of much knowledge that is of value to the rest of us. Childcare, doesn't require the same knowledge or training. If you wanted childcare that is specific then there are indeed people who will provide that to you at a cost.

When you say what is the capitalist argument for maternity leave i assume you mean what is the objection? The main objection would be who is going to pay for it? If you wanted to extend it to early years there would be the objection that people were expecting small businesses to pay for the bringing up of your children, which would be a perfectly valid argument.

I don't know how people can even suggest that a mother caring for her child is unpaid work. Where is the value? Who should pay you for what is A PRIVILEGE of having a child in a family?

Its like saying kids are being made to do unpaid labour by going to school. Its like, no, they're the ones receiving the benefit!!

I don't know how people can even suggest that a mother caring for her child is unpaid work. Where is the value? Who should pay you for what is A PRIVILEGE of having a child in a family?

But should the mother suffer as a result? Should it be more difficult for her to return to the workplace when the child is older? Should she not receive a pension when she is too old to work?

Added to this is not a well raised child beneficial to society?

If you think caring for a child is not work just because it is fulfilling couldn't that be said about a lot of careers? Doctor, teacher, artist, writer?

Assigning certain labour as not being worthy of pay because it's a privilege isn't a sensible approach. What amounts to a privilege is subjective in any case, but let's assume for the sake of argument it means something that brings a certain amount of happiness. This is also true of plenty of jobs.

Childcare is labour, whether it's unpaid or not.

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

You do realise that there are a lot of single parents who are mothers and who don't have anyone to share childcare costs with?
You do realise that women are much more likely to live in poverty after relationship breadowns? You do realise child maintenance is a pittance of what men earn? You do realise that many women can't even get the fathers to pay even that?

Before dc I had a better paying role than dh and we were both full time. Fast forward and I've been part time for years and now paid less than dh (would be the same if full time). Children made a difference for us in a way that marriage would never have done.

Quality childcare can help level up Britain
Properly funded quality childcare and early years education is a social good, just as much as mainstream education and health and a justice system and roads etc.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/quality-childcare-can-help-level-up-britain-tdtqh0586?shareToken=5e53486326c6924876c71171390a904f

I do know one or two couples where the father is the SAHP, and the mother goes out to work.
However, it goes without saying that it is the mother who gets pregnant, gives birth, and possibly breastfeed. I once worked with a woman, who returned to work full time, just 6 weeks after giving birth, but I think this is rare. Most mothers (Not all) want to be the primary carer.
Babies and young children require being looked after, and if not one of the parents, then it has to be someone else. Few couples earn enough to pay a full time Nanny.
Therefore, one of the parents, usually the mother, but not always, will take time out of work to look after the child for a while.
This will affect their career.

@Getagripffs

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

You do realise that there are a lot of single parents who are mothers and who don't have anyone to share childcare costs with?
You do realise that women are much more likely to live in poverty after relationship breadowns? You do realise child maintenance is a pittance of what men earn? You do realise that many women can't even get the fathers to pay even that?

Yes I do realise this and I genuinely believe the Universal credit system should properly top up income in this situation. Fully, not just half measures. I have not been able to get back to the thread but will do over the weekend. I also noticed the Times article which I will read again, I wonder if the journalist reads mumsnet. I plan to respond to some research on low pay so really appreciate this discussion.

the wimping out of women on the greasy promotion pole
Care to elaborate on this OP?
You seem to slip into women-blaming language a lot for a feminist. Or are you not a feminist?

I absolutely don't think men pay any attention at all to feminist organizations demanding free childcare as they already have it, and the wimping out of women on the greasy promotion pole, do you actually think men look back at mothers and think anything at all?

The full quote Anne, is about the male perspective on the scramble to the top. They, not me, are happy for women to give up as it reduces the field of competition. They have told me this. When I have suggested women should get career credit during childcare breaks they have reacted with rage. They see the transition women have to manage for a household and the integration of a new life into it as irrelevant in comparison to a man completing a year of business as usual. They are pleased that women give up trying as it's the survival of the fittest to them.