Just had a baby? Welcome to the 1950s.

Iwannahurl

There was a thought-provoking article in the Guardian Weekend magazine on Saturday March 26. Call this progress?, by Rebecca Asher, a BBC radio producer.

It's on the Guardian website with the title Just had a baby? Welcome to the 1950s. "Rebecca Asher knew having children meant sacrifice. But why, she wondered, was the sacrifice all hers?"

Excerpt:

Abruptly, the severe challenges of new motherhood were brought home to me: the loss of autonomy and the self-abnegation were instant and absolute. The independence, sense of recognition and daily purpose that I'd been used to gave way to gruelling, unacknowledged servitude. My life became unrecognisable to me. The uncertainty I'd felt about having a child had vanished – I loved my son – but a new emotional complexity took its place: despite this love, I came to resent motherhood itself. The coexistence of these two apparently contradictory feelings defined my days.

Having had a busy and purposeful life, I now occupied a universe where, apart from the grindingly repetitive tasks centred on feeding and cleaning my child, activity existed in the main simply to fill the time. I went to a parent and baby group and found myself singing nursery rhymes with other grown women as our tiny children lay impassive on the floor. Used to mixing with women and men of all ages, circumstances and life stages, I now only ever seemed to be in the company of other new mothers. I vacillated between a desperate hunger for tips on encouraging my child to sleep and a head-pounding boredom with this narrow, baby-centric world. It felt as if I'd entered a bizarre female sect in which we novices nervously twittered about our infant deities.

Every day I was brought up sharp by the dismantling of my former life. En route to one of my time-filling activities, I would pass young women determinedly heading off to work, dressed immaculately and with the luxury of a solitary bus ride ahead of them. I was filled with envy.

Asher also has a website and has written her first book, Shattered: modern motherhood and the illusion of equality.

Excerpt:

Today women outperform men at school and university. They make a success of their early careers and enter into relationships on their own terms. So it might seem that equality is in the bag. But once they have children, their illusions are swiftly shattered. Becoming a mother is a tremendously rewarding experience, but for all the current talk of shared parenting, women still find themselves bearing primary responsibility for bringing up their children, to the detriment of everything else in their lives.

Fathers, conversely, are dragooned into the role of main earner, becoming semi-detached from their families. Both men and women put up too little resistance to this pressure, shying away from asking what is really best for themselves and their children. The consequences of this enduring inequality in the home reach far beyond individuals and into society as a whole. A radical new approach is needed if we want to raise our children fairly and happily.

Ranging from antenatal care and maternity leave, to work practices, relationship dynamics and beyond, Shattered exposes the inequalities perpetuated by the state, employers and the parenting industry and suggests imaginative ways forward to achieve more balanced and fulfilling lives.

So, is this another much-needed social analysis exposing the bitter truth about families and parenting, or a bitterly resentful feminist polemic starting with rage against the realities of biology?

Orion

Either way it's a Humanities discussion

Iwannahurl

Macros42 wrote: »

Either way it's a Humanities discussion

Why? It's about parenting?

Sleepy

It honestly sounds like she's bitter that she can't be a full-time carer whilst still working in her old job to be honest. Time-filling activities? Seriously? How many of us have time that we're trying to kill during the day? Most of us mere mortals are run ragged just getting the essentials done. Though, to be fair, having a step-son means I've never really had the experience of only having one child to mind. I'd have thought that you'd still spend their nap times either doing the endless laundry, cleaning the house or simply having a nap yourself to counter-act the zombie like state that only new parents can understand!

If she resents being a stay-at-home mother she can choose to go back to work and leave baby in childcare, she can let her husband be the full-time carer (and if he won't, tough, she chose him as a partner). Or, she can abandon her old career, stay at home with baby and write a book about how downtrodden she is.

Iwannahurl

Macros42 wrote: »

Either way it's a Humanities discussion

OK, just had a quick look at the Humanities charter.

This is not a forum I am familiar with. However, I understand the basic point about having a (non-AH) forum for having civilised discussion about issues. I had assumed Parenting was the obvious choice.

With luck any ensuing discussion here will actually involve parents.

Splendour

Iwannahurl wrote: »

T
Having had a busy and purposeful life...

Well I hope her child never gets to seeing this bit!

Orion

Because it's about the sociological aspect of parenting rather than parenting itself.

Mods: Move it back to Parenting if you wish. I suppose it is a grey-area thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Morag

I can relate to her experience, being a stay at home parent was never on my list of goals.
It unfortunately became a necessity after I had my second child.
It can be very isolating and demoralising to be at home doing everything, the parent and toddler groups were awful to attend and I never had much in common with any of the other adults there.

It didn't get much better when they went to school as it was a same subset of parents invovled with the school and when it turned out my son was on the autism spectrum there wasn't any child care available for me to return to work.

It used to be such drudgery was at least shared with neighbours so that there was a group of other people with whom you could talk with and take turns keeping an eye on each other's children but that is long gone.

If it were not for the internet and being able to get into discussion and debates with other adults, I fear to think what my mental state would have degraded into. Being a stay at home parent when you are used to doing and achieving more and effecting more people and interaction with more people can be hellish never ending limbo which leaves you drained phyically, mentally and emotionally.

It's hard feeling that you and your life is on pause while you wait for the children to be grown up enough so you can try and claw back your time and life for yourself.

Many women think they have more real choices then they actually have and then are very bitter when the life they find they are living is not what they expected.

I honestly feel when I had my kids I had an abortion of my career.

Fittle

I think her use of such high-falluting words as 'self-abnegation' (wtf is that) and 'unacknowledged servitude' ruins the article. The bottom line here is she's saying she found parenting pretty difficult - the change from your single life to becoming a parent is nothing anyone can explain and no amount of words from other parents about sleep depravation, the loss of 'who you were', the immediate change in your attitude to most things once the baby arrives can explain it to you, until you experience parenting yourself.

She should just have said she struggles with parenting sometimes, as most of us do:rolleyes:

metrovelvet

Honestly what I think it does is point out how feminism sold women down the river.

While it promised the fulfillment of dreams on the horizon, emancipation from the shackles of the kitchen and the nursery, it couldn't deliver. But dreaming is a a dangerous activity.

Motherhood puts you in the mommy club. IT only takes one child to do this. You go to a mommy baby group and all anyone talks about is nappies. Dont get me started on the national obsession with how your child sleeps. YOur identity is revolutionised and is someways you become invisible because every part of you outside of the caretaker becomes invisible.

I dont think much has changed to be honest. I watch Mad Men and everyone is astounded by the mores of yesterday, but that clever show is simply using the backdrop of yesterday to talk about today.

I totally agree that nothing has changed. It may even be worse.

wonderfulname

I watched this talk a while back and found it very interesting.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg looks at why a smaller percentage of women than men reach the top of their professions -- and offers 3 powerful pieces of advice to women aiming for the C-suite.

One of those is about having kids, or rather our perception of it, another is about grasping opportunities.

Its interesting to see a perspective looking at the flaws in the female psyche rather than blaming the feminists or the men. A man doesn't have to be the main earner in a household, if you felt like it you could just pipe up and say "well actually, I'd like to keep my career".

If you watch the video there is a point where she discusses how at the end of a lecture all the women put down their hands but the men still hound for answers. It works on a bigger scale, women tend to accept their lot in life far easier than men.

Much has changed in that there is no real reason as to why motherhood would change anything drastically anymore, yet it does for many. Personally I think its down to time, things will balance out in a few decades.

Morag

The man doesnt' have to be the main earner or the woman the stay at home parent, but often this happens due to the disparity in wages or just the skill sets the people involved have. I was always the one earning more money and I had more oppertunities career wise opening up to me but working 50 hour week and doing 90% of all the house work when there are 2 kids leads to a breakdown.

The skill sets is one area which I think is changing and boys are reared to cook and clean the same as girls in the family home and Dads are encouraged to be able to look after the kids and take on more of the hands on parenting.

wonderfulname

Why didn't your partner help out more?
Sorry I must mention I had a reverse upbringing to most, my mother was the bigger earner and my father had a housework friendly job so that's where the questioning is coming from in this post and the previous one.

Morag

Lack of confidence and competence, with a huge dollop of 'not seeing the mess' and a smattering of it being 'women's work'.
It is not unusual for this to happen to most women when they move in with a partner and esp once there are kids.

It's not the type of upbringing I had either, my dad was a stay at home Dad after he left the army, my brother was reared to be able to cook and clean, so it was a shock to me to find the many things he couldn't do or didn't feel comfortable doing or didn't see the need to be done.

And once you are a stay at home parent unless the other parent knows how much needs to be done and is aware of how much work it takes to keep the house and mind the kids then you don't get help and get told you are sitting on your arse all day, all the while you are envious of them being outside of the house and dealing with other adults and being at work and having a life.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote: »

Honestly what I think it does is point out how feminism sold women down the river.

I'm not so sure it's soley a female issue tbh, though I think the feminist movement may have helped engender more false hope in women than men.

Accepting harsh realities is something I've noticed our generation struggles with. Our parents and grandparents generations seem to have been more conditioned to accept their lot and just "got on" with things. Our generation seems to have much greater expectations of life, and not unsurprisingly so.

We've been educated more than any previous generation, have grown up in a country and time where grinding poverty and suffering are largely things of the past and are living at a time where technology has become incredibly advanced.

We seem to feel cheated by the current recession, unable to accept that taking out an unmanageable mortgage for a standard 3 bedroom home is a mistake we have to pay for and to feel positively downtrodden when financial or personal morality dictates the reality that one parent will have to be a home-maker.

Cat Melodeon

On a personal level, I read the article and felt absolutely zero level of identification with the author. Sure, modern life has pressures, many modern women feel that motherhood is incompatible with the professional adult identity they had pre-baby. But blaming this on feminism is a bit silly. My understanding of feminism is that it is about achieving gender equality and allowing women and men to hold equal status and enjoy equal opportunities within society. I'm not aware of feminism promising women everything and it certainly is something that is developing, it has not achieved it's goals by any measurement.

Yes, as women our roles have expanded and our status (at least for the middle and upwardly mobile classes) has improved, but in most societies there has been little change in the status of men. Women are encouraged into the workplace, why have men not been encouraged into the homeplace to an equal extent? Countries like Sweden are on the right track - extended parental leave that can be shared between partners is the norm and fathers can and do take their leave without it having a negative impact on their careers. Parenting is shared, and can be shared in any family to a greater or lesser extent. A practical discussion needs to be had between partners before ever a child is conceived. Who earns more? Whose career is at a more critical juncture? Who is more able to be flexible in working hours? Does one of the parents relish being the primary carer, or is it something that can be shared more equally. Who takes time off when the kid is sick? What happens if a child is disabled?

It is possible to hold the role of fulltime parent and still be whoever you were before. It is possible to work fulltime and still be a good parent. What matters is finding a system that works for your family unit and sticking to it consistently. It is pointless holding your family up for comparison with the yummy-mummies and overachievers who claim to have it all - you do not know the inner workings of their lives or know what resources they have access to.

Motherhood (and parenting in general) does mean compromise. You are adding a role with significant responsibilities to your portfolio of identities. It is much harder to be a parent than it is to be a daughter or a son or a sibling, or even an employee. Taking on that role means that you have to make room in other areas. It bugs me when this is spoken of as a sacrifice. My husband and I have 'sacrificed' being footloose and fancy free, we have 'sacrificed' extra money as we no longer can work overtime, I have 'sacrificed' certain career paths because I am happier working closer to home. These are not really sacrifices. I still work. I still engage in grown-up, non-baby-related conversations with friends. I have acquaintances who probably don't even know I have a child. I don't have MAMMY printed on my forehead. And I have created a new human being, this little person who is growing up to be the spit of me and his father but yet who is a completely new and independent little man. Even if there was a sacrifice to be made, it would be worth it.

I think the author is maybe still in the early baby days when it's all about nappies and feeding and the change is immense. I think some mothers do get too caught up in that and become utter baby-bores (I use boards to get rid of all my baby-related blurb so the rest of my life is fairly free of baby conversation). I think some couples don't share the responsibilities of parenting equally enough, or some people fail to see that the full-time aspect of parenting a young child is only a temporary aspect and life does go back to something approaching normality after a year or so. I understand that for parents with special needs children it is a much more difficult situation. But I believe it is possible to remain who you were before you had children, provided you clearly set out who that person is and create time for their continued existence.

I do think 'feminism' is unfairly blamed for promising all sorts when in fact all it ever set out to do was improve matters and create awareness that inequalities do exist. There is NO equality in society, anyone who believes there is is clearly deluded. Becoming a parent forces you to reassess who you are and where you are going and exposes all those structures in society that are causing inequality. If you think that all you had to do was go out and get a degree and compete for a job and that would be that, it is time to take the blinkers off. Society is not as unequal as it once was, but gender discrimination still exists, pay gaps still divide us, the class war is ongoing and the old boys networks are alive and kicking.

metrovelvet

Motherhood is an automatic demotion. Maybe this is imperceptible in Ireland.

Sleepy

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

There is NO equality in society, anyone who believes there is is clearly deluded. Becoming a parent forces you to reassess who you are and where you are going and exposes all those structures in society that are causing inequality. If you think that all you had to do was go out and get a degree and compete for a job and that would be that, it is time to take the blinkers off. Society is not as unequal as it once was, but gender discrimination still exists, pay gaps still divide us, the class war is ongoing and the old boys networks are alive and kicking.

I thanked your post before reading this paragraph

There shouldn't be equality in society. There should be equality of opportunity. Gender discrimination still exists in both directions albeit to far smaller degrees than it did in the past. Pay gaps that exist are hangovers from times past (i.e. men in their 50/60's earning fortunes whereas women of that generation were largely homemakers) or the result of personal choices regarding work/life balance or areas of interest for those of us in younger generations e.g. more female primary school teachers, nurses, more male IT workers. The old boys networks are dying out - the greatest bastion of an old boys network I can think of (kings inns) has turned out nearly a decade of predominantly female barristers.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote: »

Motherhood is an automatic demotion. Maybe this is imperceptible in Ireland.

Fatherhood has the same effect for any father who wants to see their children on a daily basis.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

Fatherhood has the same effect for any father who wants to see their children on a daily basis.

It starts at obstetrics. You are a piece of breeding cattle.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

I thanked your post before reading this paragraph

There shouldn't be equality in society. There should be equality of opportunity. Gender discrimination still exists in both directions albeit to far smaller degrees than it did in the past. Pay gaps that exist are hangovers from times past (i.e. men in their 50/60's earning fortunes whereas women of that generation were largely homemakers) or the result of personal choices regarding work/life balance or areas of interest for those of us in younger generations e.g. more female primary school teachers, nurses, more male IT workers. The old boys networks are dying out - the greatest bastion of an old boys network I can think of (kings inns) has turned out nearly a decade of predominantly female barristers.

Sorry but the Old Boys Networks are still there. Just look at the Moriarty Tribunal. No one is going to get prosecuted because they all know each other. Problem is this country is too small and these things should be held in Brussels by people outside of the old boys network.

Sorry for OT.

I think the OP is really an aside from the equal opportunity issue.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote: »

It starts at obstetrics. You are a piece of breeding cattle.

Ah, I thought you meant professionally. I think parenthood will have a negative impact on any devoted parents career. The few incredibly successful people I've met have all sacrificed their relationships with their children to one extent or another in order to attain that professional success.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry but the Old Boys Networks are still there. Just look at the Moriarty Tribunal. No one is going to get prosecuted because they all know each other. Problem is this country is too small and these things should be held in Brussels by people outside of the old boys network.

Sorry for OT.

I think the OP is really an aside from the equal opportunity issue.

I think those old boy (and old-girl, don't forget Beverley Cooper Flynn) networks aren't particularly gender related, more reflective of an 'insider' culture.

Cat Melodeon

Sleepy wrote: »

There shouldn't be equality in society. There should be equality of opportunity. Gender discrimination still exists in both directions albeit to far smaller degrees than it did in the past. Pay gaps that exist are hangovers from times past (i.e. men in their 50/60's earning fortunes whereas women of that generation were largely homemakers) or the result of personal choices regarding work/life balance or areas of interest for those of us in younger generations e.g. more female primary school teachers, nurses, more male IT workers. The old boys networks are dying out - the greatest bastion of an old boys network I can think of (kings inns) has turned out nearly a decade of predominantly female barristers.

But what is equality of opportunity? Do you believe that if someone has ability and works hard that they have access to the same opportunities as everyone else? The notion of meritocracy is a deeply flawed one unless everyone starts out from the same starting point. The opportunities available to us depend for the most part on the accident of our birth - who our parents are, what they do, where they live, whether we are straight or gay, male or female, black, white, Traveller, whatever. Yes, there should be equality of opportunity but how can this be created without overhauling society itself?

And how can you say the old boys networks are dying out? The bulk of senior civil servants, politicians, professors, consultants, CEOs etc are men. Women may 'choose' jobs at lower levels but that is because there is no other real option - no universal (free) childcare, no encouragement at statutory level for men to assume equal responsibility for the everyday demands of parenting etc. Gender divisions continue in the education system - girls' schools often don't offer more technical subjects, boys are less likely to study Home Ec etc which has a knock-on effect to the careers school-leavers are likely to pursue.

metrovelvet

Also, if you have a couple, both with high functioning careers, the expectation is for the mother to make the career sacrifices, the peer pressure comes from family etc.

I also know a couple who divided everything "equally" housework, bills, etc, but if it was his turn to do the dishes, he's still leave the baby's stuff in the sink for her to do. LOL.

Orion

metrovelvet wrote: »

I also know a couple who divided everything "equally" housework, bills, etc, but if it was his turn to do the dishes, he's still leave the baby's stuff in the sink for her to do. LOL.

I resemble that remark

It works the other way too. If there's a nail to be hammered to hang a picture on or grass to be cut the expectation is that the man will do it. That's a societal thing and women are just as guilty as men in that regard.

Morag

Tbh if I am doing all the washing and cleaning the house and the toilet then he can fecking well do the 'mans work' and cut the grass and clean the windows and do the bin.

metrovelvet

Sharrow wrote: »

Tbh if I am doing all the washing and cleaning the house and the toilet then he can fecking well do the 'mans work' and cut the grass and clean the windows and do the bin.

In this house I do everything. Im the wife,the husband, the mother, the father, the maid, the cook, the assembler, the garbage putter outer, the toilet trainer.

But to be honest I do have to hire someone for some of the diy. Also because my male friends are as useless as I am at it.

Sleepy

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

But what is equality of opportunity? Do you believe that if someone has ability and works hard that they have access to the same opportunities as everyone else? The notion of meritocracy is a deeply flawed one unless everyone starts out from the same starting point. The opportunities available to us depend for the most part on the accident of our birth - who our parents are, what they do, where they live, whether we are straight or gay, male or female, black, white, Traveller, whatever. Yes, there should be equality of opportunity but how can this be created without overhauling society itself?

We're a bit O/T here but 100% inherritance tax, no private education prior to third level and at that point it's down to the parents I'm afraid.

And how can you say the old boys networks are dying out? The bulk of senior civil servants, politicians, professors, consultants, CEOs etc are men.

You left out the pre-fix "old". These are the hangovers I referred to. Most legal and medicine grads these days are women.

Women may 'choose' jobs at lower levels but that is because there is no other real option - no universal (free) childcare, no encouragement at statutory level for men to assume equal responsibility for the everyday demands of parenting etc. Gender divisions continue in the education system - girls' schools often don't offer more technical subjects, boys are less likely to study Home Ec etc which has a knock-on effect to the careers school-leavers are likely to pursue.

Universal free childcare is an unattainable goal in this country for at least the next decade. It's simply unaffordable.

The only statutory issues I can think of in relation to men assuming equal responsibilities towards childcare would be the antiquated system we have of maternity, rather than parental leave to be shared between the parents as suits (I'd personally recommend a minimum amount of this as mandatory each parent where possible). That and automatic guardianship for fathers and a default position of shared custody in the event of parental separation.

The education system is (like most of what we're discussing here) an entire thread unto itself. Single-sex vs. Co-ed is an issue I'm not sure I've taken a side on but all schools being co-ed would certainly have the advantage of equal access to classes (geography would then take over as the main impact on school sizes).

There's also, always the option of choosing to raise children with a man who's prepared to be the primary care giver? We do exist you know.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Also, if you have a couple, both with high functioning careers, the expectation is for the mother to make the career sacrifices, the peer pressure comes from family etc.

I also know a couple who divided everything "equally" housework, bills, etc, but if it was his turn to do the dishes, he's still leave the baby's stuff in the sink for her to do. LOL.

He's not a pilot in Aer Lingus is he? I know a couple where the mother won't allow the father to sterilise the bottles etc. because he couldn't possibly be trusted with that (despite being responsible for 100's of lives on a daily basis as a pilot).

If you have a couple who both have "high functioning careers" that want to keep working, realistically, they shouldn't be having a child. Should contraception fail, imho, at that point it becomes a negotiation between the parents to be as to who should be the primary care giver based on salary, opportunities for advancement, flexibility of career, degree of desire to be a primary child-carer etc.

Orion

Sharrow wrote: »

Tbh if I am doing all the washing and cleaning the house and the toilet then he can fecking well do the 'mans work' and cut the grass and clean the windows and do the bin.

But that's my point exactly. There no reason why all those jobs can't be shared. It's the concept of "mans work" and "womens work" that should be challenged.

Morag

Macros42 wrote: »

But that's my point exactly. There no reason why all those jobs can't be shared. It's the concept of "mans work" and "womens work" that should be challenged.

I can do the gardening and the DIY and outside jobs, there are times I have done when I get too frustrated at waiting for it to be done.

It has been challenged and I even got asked why I didn't do the bins and I said I would gladly swap cleaning the bathroom in exchange and was turned down.

dan_d

Not a parent (I've said it before!), but a woman!

I am however, an engineer. Therefore I've spent the last 10 odd years of my life almost solely in the company of men. 5 of them on a building site.

In my house, house work is shared. He cleans toilets, I clean toilets. I hang pictures and put furniture together, he puts washes on and hoovers the house. Admittedly, as I've been unemployed the last while, I've taken on the bulk of the housework - mainly due to boredom!But when I'm back at work, I wholly expect him to pitch in.The way I see it, he lives here too, he makes as much (and more!) of a mess as I do, therefore he can clean up too. Also helps make him appreciate how much effort it is to clean a house...:p. I do find that I would be more tuned in to what's going on around the house, that I'll pick things up as I walk around and tidy, etc, but in so far as I can, we split it all up.At least 60-40!!

While on site, I did not differentiate.I did not try to keep up with the lads - I'd ask for help if something heavy needed lifting , etc,etc...but other than that, I did not believe in playing the poor little girl card - and more importantly I was never, ever treated that way.I expected to be treated in exactly the same way as any men I was working with.

I find this article interesting because my one dread about (hopefully) future motherhood is that I don't want to be "just a mammy". Kids, great. But I'm a person too.I want to have my own life too, my own friends, job and interests. It doesn't have to high-powered and corporate, but it does have to be something I'm interested in.I don't want to become one of those people who does nothing but talk constantly about their child in the (often misguided) belief that everyone else in the room is as interested in their offspring as they are. There are no 2 ways about it, that mothers take the brunt of child rearing and house cleaning. But....why can't they ask for help? Insist on help? How much of it do they bring on themselves by simply suffering in silence (so to speak) and becoming resentful? Why can't they open their mouth and say "well look, I've done XYZ, can you please take a turn to allow me to do ABC"? At least try for a compromise, some sharing of the work.

I have sympathy, but at the same time there's no use in someone like this complaining while not trying to do anything about it.

iguana

Macros42 wrote: »

I resemble that remark

It works the other way too. If there's a nail to be hammered to hang a picture on or grass to be cut the expectation is that the man will do it. That's a societal thing and women are just as guilty as men in that regard.

I do all those things in my house and my husband probably does most of the cooking.

Daisy M

dan_d wrote: »

Not a parent (I've said it before!), but a woman!

I am however, an engineer. Therefore I've spent the last 10 odd years of my life almost solely in the company of men. 5 of them on a building site.

In my house, house work is shared. He cleans toilets, I clean toilets. I hang pictures and put furniture together, he puts washes on and hoovers the house. Admittedly, as I've been unemployed the last while, I've taken on the bulk of the housework - mainly due to boredom!But when I'm back at work, I wholly expect him to pitch in.The way I see it, he lives here too, he makes as much (and more!) of a mess as I do, therefore he can clean up too. Also helps make him appreciate how much effort it is to clean a house...:p. I do find that I would be more tuned in to what's going on around the house, that I'll pick things up as I walk around and tidy, etc, but in so far as I can, we split it all up.At least 60-40!!

While on site, I did not differentiate.I did not try to keep up with the lads - I'd ask for help if something heavy needed lifting , etc,etc...but other than that, I did not believe in playing the poor little girl card - and more importantly I was never, ever treated that way.I expected to be treated in exactly the same way as any men I was working with.

I find this article interesting because my one dread about (hopefully) future motherhood is that I don't want to be "just a mammy". Kids, great. But I'm a person too.I want to have my own life too, my own friends, job and interests. It doesn't have to high-powered and corporate, but it does have to be something I'm interested in.I don't want to become one of those people who does nothing but talk constantly about their child in the (often misguided) belief that everyone else in the room is as interested in their offspring as they are. There are no 2 ways about it, that mothers take the brunt of child rearing and house cleaning. But....why can't they ask for help? Insist on help? How much of it do they bring on themselves by simply suffering in silence (so to speak) and becoming resentful? Why can't they open their mouth and say "well look, I've done XYZ, can you please take a turn to allow me to do ABC"? At least try for a compromise, some sharing of the work.

I have sympathy, but at the same time there's no use in someone like this complaining while not trying to do anything about it.

While I understand you taking on more of the housework due to been unemployed and having more time to fill, I hope that when you return to employment you slip back into your old and very fair routine easily, I think some men can really get spoiled easily.
As regards your dread of just been mammy, who cares how other people see you, if you become known to some people as so and sos mam dont stress, you know who you are, who cares what anybody else thinks.
Something I have noticed is that full time working mums tend to do more of the kid talk than non working mums, my own opinion is that they possibly feel they have to prove themselves to be a interested caring mum to others, if I am right it is a pity that anyone should feel the need to do so.

pickarooney

I would dearly love to give up half the hours of my boring job that I get no stimulation from in order to spend it with my children. I'm sure a lot of fathers feel the same way but this is not an option with employers, the loss of income notwithstanding.

Wantobe

I think there's an interesting difference made by an earlier poster between the early months/years and later on with a toddler or young child. Women are tied physically and 'legally' to very young babies by virtue of breastfeeding/doctors appts and maternity leave. This can be a stifling and abrupt change to someone who might previously have been very independent and career- minded. But things level out later on as long as both spouses/parents see themselves as having equal responsibility.

I'm lucky, I feel, that my husband takes equal responsibility with our children and does not regard this as doing me a favour ( and yes, I shouldn't say I'm lucky but it's the truth of how I feel about it)- I know other women whose husbands regard anything to do with the children as their wife's responsibility and think nothing of going for a few pints after work with the lads a few days a week. I don't really understand how those women put up with it or why they would assume that role but then no-one really understands the dynamics of another person's relationship.

Daisy M

Wantobe wrote: »

I think there's an interesting difference made by an earlier poster between the early months/years and later on with a toddler or young child. Women are tied physically and 'legally' to very young babies by virtue of breastfeeding/doctors appts and maternity leave. This can be a stifling and abrupt change to someone who might previously have been very independent and career- minded. But things level out later on as long as both spouses/parents see themselves as having equal responsibility.

I'm lucky, I feel, that my husband takes equal responsibility with our children and does not regard this as doing me a favour ( and yes, I shouldn't say I'm lucky but it's the truth of how I feel about it)- I know other women whose husbands regard anything to do with the children as their wife's responsibility and think nothing of going for a few pints after work with the lads a few days a week. I don't really understand how those women put up with it or why they would assume that role but then no-one really understands the dynamics of another person's relationship.

What always makes me laugh is when men make a reference to them babysitting if their wife/partner goes out, when do we ladies ever refer to minding our own children as babysitting?:D

bourgie

metrovelvet wrote: »

Honestly what I think it does is point out how feminism sold women down the river.

While it promised the fulfillment of dreams on the horizon, emancipation from the shackles of the kitchen and the nursery, it couldn't deliver. But dreaming is a a dangerous activity.

I totally agree that nothing has changed. It may even be worse.

One of the basic underpinnings of feminism is that for centuries "women's work" (housework, child-raising) was done for free, allowing men to pursue the “more important” paid work. At the end of the day, someone has to take care of the **** and string beans. The kind of feminism I understand says there is no reason why it is only the woman in a relationship who looks after that side of things, it should also be up to the partner. That's equality Feminism was never about enabling women to have a high flying career and be a full time housekeeper and primary child carer, while your male partner just contributes the pay pack.

I think it can be hard for women to stop the "maternal gatekeeping" and also get rid of this notion that men can't change nappies / wash the dishes / look after a small baby. And to let go and trust your partner to take as good care of your children as you do. Equally, it is time for more men to play a full role in childminding/household tasks especially if both are working.

I didn't have the luxury of a long maternity break, both because of HR rules and finances. My husband took two months paternity leave (unpaid) and looked after our baby. We both work but he does more of the child-minding and housework Mon - Fri because his job is more flexible than mine, with less of a commute. Ok, he does more lawn mowing / putting up shelves than me and I bake more cakes, but housework is divided as equally as possible. I don't know how women whose partners "wouldn't think" of putting on a wash cope with working full time and having kids. They “don’t think” because they get away with not doing so.

If I have any advice to give to my daughter it will be don't get involved with a bloke who isn’t prepared to pull his weight in the house. If he's the kind of guy who expects someone else to unload the dishwasher and hang out the washing, don't have kids with him, or if you do, expect a life of relentless housework regardless of whether you do paid work or not.

There are two issues in this article – one is her difficulty with being a full time carer when her baby is small (which is par for the course I think) and the other is the fact that for (the majority?) of women, they are expected to continue to be the main carer and housecleaner in the family when they return to work. Personally I think the next big step for feminism and a general improvement in family life is for more men to step up to the mark and start looking after 50% of the **** and string beans, especially if both partners work full time.

Why don't more men take unpaid parental leave? It's not just for women and as I understand it, it’s available in Ireland. Employers wouldn't like it? Well, they're not keen on women having babies either, nor are they keen on us leaving on time, or asking for 80% but somehow it is only expected that women ask for this and put up with the employers moaning about the cost of employing childbearing women. Loss of money? Most women I know do a couple of months unpaid maternity leave anyway. Plus more and more women earn the same or similar to their partners at the point of having children so it’s not as if there is always a huge difference in who is not being paid.

My husband says the best thing he ever did was take those two months off. It was a tough slog and a steep learning curve but he loves his family and I really believe that we have a pretty balanced life only because he is willing to step outside the stereotype of the working father. We both win.

Semele

Fittle wrote: »

I think her use of such high-falluting words as 'self-abnegation' (wtf is that) and 'unacknowledged servitude' ruins the article.
She should just have said she struggles with parenting sometimes, as most of us do:rolleyes:

What? Why? Would her article be more sympathetic if it was "dumbed down"? Maybe that's just how she's used to expressing herself. I fail to see the point of your comment at all- if anything it just confirms her point that being educated/intellectual and being a mother are seen as mutally incompatible.

pickarooney

bourgie wrote: »

[I think it can be hard for women to stop the "maternal gatekeeping" and also get rid of this notion that men can't change nappies / wash the dishes / look after a small baby.

All joking aside, are there really people who believe this rubbish? Why would anyone go out with, much less have a family with someone they considered/knew to be so utterly incompetent?

metrovelvet

pickarooney wrote: »

All joking aside, are there really people who believe this rubbish? Why would anyone go out with, much less have a family with someone they considered/knew to be so utterly incompetent?

So they can control them.

Daisy M

metrovelvet wrote: »

So they can control them.

Do you really think so? That would be a really scary basis for any relationship.
Pickarooney I completely empathise with you re your job and wishing you had the choice to work less hours, I remember when my first child was 18mths and leaving my boring full time job due to the fact it wasnt paying me to work, people used to presume I missed it and was bored at home, I found that amazing spending extra time with my son was way more interesting than what I had been working at. Now I guess if I was someone who had f a career that I loved and was interested in, it may have a been different.
Tbh I think that any rational person knows that life will have to change when they have kids, figureing out that caring for another person 24hrs a day will require changes is not exactly rocket sience. I doubt there are many couples who thought that having a baby would not effect either one or both of their work commitments and that there would not be a temendous amount of work and compromise involved in the raising of their family.

Iwannahurl

bourgie wrote: »

I think it can be hard for women to stop the "maternal gatekeeping" and also get rid of this notion that men can't change nappies / wash the dishes / look after a small baby. And to let go and trust your partner to take as good care of your children as you do. Equally, it is time for more men to play a full role in childminding/household tasks especially if both are working.

pickarooney wrote: »

All joking aside, are there really people who believe this rubbish? Why would anyone go out with, much less have a family with someone they considered/knew to be so utterly incompetent?

In fact there is research suggesting that such "gatekeeping" is common. I recall reading something about this several months ago, but I can't recall the details now so I am unable to find the newspaper article or the original research paper.

The research was done by a US professor of social science, IIRC, and one of its conclusions was that some women who work full-time outside the home still regard housework and childcare as their domain. Rather than let their partner get on with it and do it their own way (eek?) some women may take a managerial approach to housework in addition to doing their day job. This may work in some relationships, but IMHO it could also lead to stress and conflict in both partners. There are no easy answers and no hard and fast rules -- there are big social patterns but every relationship also has its own twist.

Rebecca Asher discusses this in her Guardian article:

Mothers who begrudge their partners' lack of involvement, especially in the gruelling early stages of child-rearing, can pull up the drawbridge when it comes to the rewards. Helen, a full-time mother from Oxford, admits that she now feels territorial about her relationship with her daughter. "There was this long period of time when my partner wasn't interested at all in doing anything, and now that our daughter is much more fun, he's more interested in spending time with her. So there's a bit of, like, 'Actually, you can't do that. You can't ignore her for however many months when you think she's a bit boring and then suddenly decide that you want to spend time with her, but only when it suits you.'"

This kind of "maternal gatekeeping" can leave some fathers feeling discouraged, even depressed, and many talk of the pressure not to put a foot wrong. Matt says, "My wife is quite controlling. She gets upset if things aren't the way she wants them, so she takes on a lot of the responsibility, but resents it at the same time."

Bob echoes this: "It's considered desirable for me to be more involved, equally involved, with all aspects of childcare, but my opinion doesn't seem to be respected. It can be demoralising as a father if you feel your opinion is not seen as valid."

By the time my child was 12 months old, we were all more than ready for me to return to work. I saw that my son was keen to branch out into new environments and widen his circle of friends. I was certain that my husband wanted a change from my foul temper and demands that he do more, and yet do things exactly as I would. And I was definitely ready to earn my own money, rebuild a social life and have a place in "the world" again.

Daisy M

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In fact there is research Bob echoes By the time my child was 12 months old, we were all more than ready for me to return to work. I saw that my son was keen to branch out into new environments and widen his circle of friends.

Thats some 12mth old bloody hell I thought mine learning to walk at that age was a major achievement!:D
Btw I wannahurl I know thats a quote from the author not you.

bourgie

pickarooney wrote: »

All joking aside, are there really people who believe this rubbish? Why would anyone go out with, much less have a family with someone they considered/knew to be so utterly incompetent?

You would think so, wouldn't you! You should have a look at some of the Irish parenting boards outside boards. There are a lot of 1950s marriages out there, with the men spending all their free time on with their mates, down the pub and not doing any housework because "god love him, he wouldn't be able to find the cooker / iron properly / can't really see dirt / would let the children eat sweets all day". It is amazing but it appears to happen a lot and both partners are culpable.

I nicked maternal gatekeeping from the article but I definitely think it is valid in many ways. I know my husband got (rightly )annoyed with me when I'd get home from work and criticise how he'd been looking after the kids all day when all that was wrong was that he hadn't done things exactly how I'd like them. I definitely tried to project manage him. You do have to step back and respect how your partner does things. I'm talking about minor differences in parenting styles here, rather than big issues.

3DataModem

I believe that one of the greatest cons ever perpetrated has been convincing women that "work" is more important than "parenting".

Parenting can be a lonely, thankless, difficult grind. Work is immediately rewarding, renumerated, social and exciting, and gives a percieved status.

So we have convinced ourselves that work is somehow more important... but the real truth is it is just easier to go to work than stay at home with babies/toddlers.

ash23

3DataModem wrote: »

So we have convinced ourselves that work is somehow more important... but the real truth is it is just easier to go to work than stay at home with babies/toddlers.

Thats a bit misguided in fairness.
I work full time. I also stayed at home full time when my daughter was a baby, going back to work part time when she was 18 months and full time when she was 3.
I found being a stay at home parent easier in terms of getting things done, getting to the post office, the bank etc. I had time to go and get my grocery shopping. I wasn't constantly racing from A to B. I had time to cook meals, to plan what we were having for dinner. Life was slower paced and more leisurely. I could take her to the park and enjoy sunny days.
However I was lonely and I was bored and money was tight. I came to the conclusion that being at home full time wasn't for me.

Now I race from A to B, chasing my tail. If I have to pick up a parcel at the PO it's like a military operation getting from work to the PO without being too late for it closing and not being late collecting my daughter from creche. Ihave to balance sick days and school plays, doctors appts and dentist visits with my job, all the while trying to not look like I'm taking loads of time off and that I'm working just as hard as my childless counterparts which has caused issues. When she was smaller I was given a warning about the number of days I had to go home when she was sick. In my last job it was frowned upon not to stay late and work overtime. I left and luckily am working somewhere which expects you to go home at quitting time.
On the plus side I find it rewarding in a way that I personally didn't find when I was at home.

There are pros and cons to each but I wouldn't think that either is necessarily easier overall.In my dream scenario I'd work 8 to 3, term time.

metrovelvet

3DataModem wrote: »

I believe that one of the greatest cons ever perpetrated has been convincing women that "work" is more important than "parenting".

Parenting can be a lonely, thankless, difficult grind. Work is immediately rewarding, renumerated, social and exciting, and gives a percieved status.

So we have convinced ourselves that work is somehow more important... but the real truth is it is just easier to go to work than stay at home with babies/toddlers.

It might be easier to do that, if you have someone else around to share the pitfalls of it with, like to take turns if the child is sick, doctors appointments, etc.

If you don't then you'll probably get fired anyway unless you have a forgiving boss.

Not to mention showing for work chronically sleep deprived in the early years.

Wantobe

3DataModem wrote: »

Work is immediately rewarding, renumerated, social and exciting, and gives a percieved status.

Not always true though- where my children go to school there's a bit of status going the other way around- ie we're doing well enough to be able to afford for one of us to stay at home...:rolleyes: This is the land of the suvs and mpvs, designer sunglasses and outfits are de rigeur. The one time I had a day off and went down to the gym when my children were in school it was full of 'yummie mummies'.

I think women in general are self critical anyway- if we're sahms, we resent career women, if we're career women we feel guilty and jealous of sahms.

I've been both, now working but a lot of the time wish I could be a sahm, especially now both of our children are at school.:D

pickarooney

Going back towards the OP a bit - one thing I think most, if not all new parents underestimate is the way time seems to take on a whole new meaning with children.

On your own you can plan a list of 20 things to do in a day and get them done. With a child the hours just sort of seep away as you constantly gather, pack, dress, change, cajole and command. Getting a few groceries becomes a two-hour expedition, hoovering the floor takes eight times as long as the wee'uns plug out the cable every 5 seconds and splill everything within reach onto the bit you just cleaned. A quick meal is most of the evening... At the end of the day you have trouble understanding, much less explaining where all the time went. You're exhausted and you've only 'done' two things (while 7-level multitaksing).

Iwannahurl

Wantobe wrote: »

Not always true though- where my children go to school there's a bit of status going the other way around- ie we're doing well enough to be able to afford for one of us to stay at home...:rolleyes: This is the land of the suvs and mpvs, designer sunglasses and outfits are de rigeur. The one time I had a day off and went down to the gym when my children were in school it was full of 'yummie mummies'.

I think women in general are self critical anyway- if we're sahms, we resent career women, if we're career women we feel guilty and jealous of sahms.

I've been both, now working but a lot of the time wish I could be a sahm, especially now both of our children are at school.:D

Perhaps the generic term should be SAHP?

As a (poor) SAHP myself, I am aware of the varied advantages of being in paid employment. Keenly aware, in fact, since I have no money, no status, no work-related social life, no work-related intellectual or problem-solving challenges, no sizeable chunk of time when I'm not with one or both of the kids.

Since our oldest goes to a creche 5 days a week, my OH tells me I'm lucky and possibly in a rare position. That's true, and the two together are more than twice as much work, but one child still takes up all your time (OK, so I'm typing this while she sits on the floor pulling all the story books off the shelf). By the way, both my parents are dead and all my siblings emigrated many years ago. My partner now has only one surviving parent, who happens to have a job and who lives 5-hours drive away. A sister who lives nearby has a toddler herself. Therefore no extended family to help out, as Rebecca Asher had.

Talking about (lamenting) the challenging details of ones own domestic arrangements is probably a personal thing best discussed with ones partner. But the multitude of individual domestic arrangements do not occur in a social vacuum and that's where the personal definitely becomes political.

Frequently when I am out and about during the day with my 18-month-old daughter I see groups of women in their 30s and 40s. They are plainly enjoying some leisure time, usually walking, chatting, shopping, having coffee and the like. I doubt very much that they are unemployed and just passing the time. It is reasonable to conclude that they are mothers whose children are now in primary or secondary school, leaving them with several child-free, though not work-free, hours during the day. They don't look stressed, care-worn, sleep-deprived and miserably idle. They are well-dressed, fit (many of them), healthy, active, and blooming where they are planted.

Presumably the drudgery years are behind them, and they no longer have snotty, whinging, crud-encrusted, hyperactive, mini-vandals gnawing at their heels. Friends who had children earlier tell us that it gets better (though no doubt others who started even earlier are saying "wait until they're teenagers") and that does keep me going.

Perhaps Rebecca Asher wrote her book (burning even more midnight oil) right in the middle of the really stressful early years of parenting. No doubt she was right about many of the social issues, and indeed she supported her arguments with evidence. But maybe her perspective will be a bit different in a few years?

Perhaps it's the stress that is the primary cause of the conflict. If we can be a bit more forgiving of ourselves and each other, and remember why we're putting ourselves to all this bother, maybe the practical solutions to domestic strife will come easier?