Stop Socializing Men to be Breadwinners

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I thought this was rather good, especially stating around the 11 minute mark.  I'm not holding my breath for any massive societal shifts, at least not here, but she makes valid points.

 

http://youtu.be/tH5iEf9oxaI

 

 

Edit -- even though I embed video that same way each time, it's a coin flip if it works.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

If it is genetic, how would that account for the Scandinavian differences cited by the TED speaker?

[LucyStoner]

Thanks for the video link. In my marriage we have had a much more fluid rather than traditional partnership on roles at home and it's been very good for both of us and our sons.

[LucyStoner]

I don't think it is socializing men. I think that in their DNA they have a need to provide, to be the hero, etc. I don't get why that is wrong???

Maybe watch the video? There are significant cultural differences at play. Too many to rule all of our expectations of masculinity as being strictly genetic.

[maize]

I think dividing responsibilities for providing and childcare between spouses works best when the couple only has one or two children. The fertility rates for Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are all below replacement rate. The realities of childbearing, breast feeding, etc. place different demands on the sexes. Personally I am very grateful my husband takes the role of provider very seriously! Much as he might want to, he can't be the one to nurse a sick baby who just wants to breast feed all night, and I'm awfully glad I don't have to leave said sick baby and go into the office in the morning.

[maize]

M husband does tend to be a very hands on dad when he is home :)

[regentrude]

There are also biological differences that make one model more practical than the other. Of course mothers could pump breast milk in their breaks at the office and have their stay-at-home husbands bottle feed the expressed milk to the babies. Absolutely doable - but to me, that sounds like a lot  more trouble than mom staying home and dad going to work instead.

 

If you are looking at Scandinavia for comparison, one should keep in mind that 16 months of paid parental leave like in Sweden makes the situation completely incomparable to the US.

ETA: Norway has 12 weeks of mandatory parental leave for fathers - paid!

 

Look at this summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

 

The US is the only developed country with ZERO days of paid parental leave.

ETA: Scratch the word "developed". Almost all third world countries offer paid leave.

[Hikin' Mama]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm wearing my flameproof suit. :)

 

I've seen enough deadbeat dads that I wish more people would socialize their boys to be providers. My 22 yo son takes his role very seriously as provider for his wife and baby. I'm incredibly proud of him! (His biodad was one of those deadbeats.)

 

FTR, I 100 % support women working outside the home and stay-at-home dads.

[elegantlion]

I may delete this later as it's personal, but I believe the "societal norms" of gender roles helped lead to the demise of my marriage. I saw exdh so wrapped in his ability to provide that when the economy collapsed and his entire industry went kaput in 6 weeks in our area, it damaged him beyond belief. Despite his efforts and mine, he never recovered that part of his "manhood". 

 

Dh would have been the epitome of a good stay at home dad. He's way more domestic than me, a loving father, and a better cook. There were times we considered switching roles but he had more earning power than me. 

 

The mindset was so ingrained him that it destroyed any ability he had to be objective about our life situation, which lead to choices that ruined our marriage.

 

In my non-scientific study, I see men in their 40s being a high risk for issues because of this. I know more than one man that has opted to end his life because of the pressure of providing for a family. It angers me and breaks my heart. Men can break, men can lead households and men can be great stay at home  dads. The biological differences don't form the cultural differences.  

[PuddleJumper1]

elegnatlion - I won't quote you in case you decide to delete but I can so relate to what you are saying. My husband is of the mind set you describe. He would kill himself working before wanting me to get a job. It's been ingrained in him that the man is the provider. Thankfully our marriage hasn't had struggles because of it but he certainly has. I would happily work if it would help but it would kill him if I 'had' to because he wasn't providing for our family (those would be his thoughts - not mine). He, too , would be an excellent SAHD. He is a much better cook than me and does quite well with the housework too.

 

:grouphug: 

[mommymilkies]

I think dividing responsibilities for providing and childcare between spouses works best when the couple only has one or two children. The fertility rates for Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are all below replacement rate. The realities of childbearing, breast feeding, etc. place different demands on the sexes. Personally I am very grateful my husband takes the role of provider very seriously! Much as he might want to, he can't be the one to nurse a sick baby who just wants to breast feed all night, and I'm awfully glad I don't have to leave said sick baby and go into the office in the morning.

I agree.  I wish there was more societal support for both parents because of a few realitities:

 

Women make less money than men, even when equally qualified

 

Breastfeeding and child birth are more demanding on women

 

Lack of respect for the non-breadwinning partner-both from lack of governmental and societal support that the other parent is somehow lazy. Taking care of the household or children just isn't a respected position. 

 

Among others. 

 

That said, I've talked to my 4 girls and 1 boy about this.  I want them all to have the opportunity to stay home with their children, at least when young.  So I try to help them with the realities of future careers and I am encouraging alternate sources of income so they will be able to since our system sucks compared to many other developed nations.  So they are learning music and I will expect them to have a wide variety of skills for part time work so they will not be stranded without options or a job that is so demanding that they don't get to see their kids often. This goes for my son and daughters.  I don't want either to be stuck in an unequal partnership. 

[livetoread]

I wish we were more free to make decisions based on things other than gender. Talent and interest for example.

 

I think a male being a deadbeat dad is shameful, but I also think a woman expecting a man to do what she isn't willing to do herself is shameful too. Someone has to bring in money, but if he has more desire and talent for being the primary caregiver, she better start providing. It isn't his job because he's a man, it's someone's job because they are both parents.

[Liz CA]

For me it comes down to choices. I felt very blessed to have the choice to be home with a young child. Now that this child is an adult, I am very excited to be in the workforce because now I can devote my full attention to clients and not wonder what is going on at home, when the child will get sick, if my daycare arrangements will work out, etc.

I hope my son will be able to give his future wife this choice - if she chooses otherwise, it's her/their choice but the pivotal point is to have a choice and not be forced into working when you know your children would be better served if you were home with them.

[T'smom]

My dh has a lot more earning potential than I do. We do have a very traditional set up of working dad/SAHM, but it's not because we feel like those roles are what we are "supposed" to be. He is waaaaaay more involved with the kids than my dad ever was. BUT when it comes to leaving a child and going to work after maternity/paternity leave.....it doesn't break dh's heart. It would break mine. I worked part-time when my first was born, I didn't want to quit my job but I cried a LOT leaving my ds when he was 3 months old. Dh did not cry. He tried to take as few vacation days as possible when the baby was born! I would have kept that part time job because I really loved it, but we moved. I am VERY thankful that I don't have to leave a child under 1 while I go back to work. Although, dh would make a perfectly fine SAHD, he wouldn't be thankful for that. Even now, it doesn't bother him to go on business trips for a week or two. I would hate being away from my kids for that long. (Although, if I had the option for a part-time job that I enjoyed, I would take it. Nt because we need the money, but because I could use the intellectual stimulation and adult interaction!)

[DragonFaerie]

I think I was born in the wrong decade.  I like the Dad goes to work while Mom cares for the home and children dynamic.  Then again, I've never had any desire to be anything other than a mom and homemaker.  I should have been born in the 40s. :D

[G5052]

We've always been very fluid as well, although we chose for me to stop working full-time when I lost my professional position while on maternity leave with my firstborn.  It was more logical for me to quit (biology, commute time, long work hours).

 

Since then I've juggled part-time and contract gigs, never as much $$$ as I once made, but it has always worked out.  That's my "homeschool retirement" plan as well.

 

I've raised mine to expect that sort of thing.  I always tell them to find something they love, and to also consider part-time and self-employment as viable options.  

 

Ideally, I think homeschool moms should keep up some part-time work through their childbearing years, but that's a decision a couple should make together of course.

[texasmama]

I think I was born in the wrong decade.  I like the Dad goes to work while Mom cares for the home and children dynamic.  Then again, I've never had any desire to be anything other than a mom and homemaker.  I should have been born in the 40s. :D

Me, too, though I have had desires for a career, and I did get a graduate degree prior to having kids.  My career was just always second to family/kids in my mind, even before I had kids.

[fraidycat]

Very interesting. Now that I think about it, my DH would probably make a better SAHD than I do a SAHM. We'd probably be even more dynamic as part-timers in both bread winning and caregiving.

[texasmama]

Since then I've juggled part-time and contract gigs, never as much $$$ as I once made, but it has always worked out.  That's my "homeschool retirement" plan as well.

 

I've raised mine to expect that sort of thing.  I always tell them to find something they love, and to also consider part-time and self-employment as viable options.  

 

Ideally, I think homeschool moms should keep up some part-time work through their childbearing years, but that's a decision a couple should make together of course.

This very much describes my path, though I was at home with kids and no job of any type for about 7 years.  Some of that was due to my mom's stroke and eventual death.  When that happened, all of my plans to return to adjunct teaching and clinical supervision vanished, and I was at home taking care of a baby and a toddler.

 

FWIW, dh would make a terrible stay at home parent, and he knows it, but it comes very naturally to me as long as I can have some outside interests to feed my soul.  :)

[mamaraby]

Very interesting. Now that I think about it, my DH would probably make a better SAHD than I do a SAHM. We'd probably be even more dynamic as part-timers in both bread winning and caregiving.

I think dh and I would also do well under an arrangement like this, but given how long I've been out of the workforce and dh's comparatively larger earning power, this is pretty much impossible.

 

I haven't had a chance to watch the video (are there every transcripts of TED Talks?), but I think part of the solution is a more humane set of policies that enables this sort of arrangement - job sharing, requiring that businesses have to take something other than profit margins into consideration (be that through social pressures, marketplace, or legislative) so that externalizing costs/risks is harder, offering paid family leave for both fathers and mothers, affordable health care, better ways to save for retirement, etc.

 

For all the talk of "family values" we sure don't value the non-paid work that happens at home. Making it possible for men and women to have more equitable share of the stuff of home life would definitely be a step in the right direction.

[mommymilkies]

I think dh and I would also do well under an arrangement like this, but given how long I've been out of the workforce and dh's comparatively larger earning power, this is pretty much impossible.

:iagree: I had an important and very awesome job working in a medical lab.  I made less than 1/4 of what my teacher dh makes! I wouldn't mind a prn job where I could work my own hours.  Dh and I both hate shift work after working it so long.  Luckily, dh's job teaching has very flexible and undemanding hours.  He recommends it to all of his students (male and female) who worry about balancing work and family. 

[LucyStoner]

We'd probably be even more dynamic as part-timers in both bread winning and caregiving.

The biggest issue with this is the opportunity cost of working part time in a knowledge based field. We've taken a financial hit when each of us was doing a little bit of work since it's not true that part timers earn proportionally less- ultimately they earn less per hour than they would if they were full time. And part time is usually more like 30-40 hours anyways (as opposed to 50-70+) Also our employer based health care system carries serious disincentives for that to change since each healthcare plan participant is the same high cost so it's better for the company if they pay per employee for as many hours as possible from as few employees as possible instead of paying for producive work hours completed.

[LucyStoner]

The average American family is small (1-3 kids) and mothers breastfeed 6 months or so. I am not going to say that is the best way and it is certainly not the only way but in that situation I think the role of biology in our domestic roles is way overstated. Biology means mama's got the breasts; it doesn't explain why dads need to work to the exclusion of being hands on with 8 year old children. It doesn't explain why FT working mothers still do most all of the housework and have less leisure time than FT working dads. Hell, it doesn't explain why working mothers is a term in common usage and working dads is a phrase that falls oddly on the ears.

[DragonFaerie]

Me, too, though I have had desires for a career, and I did get a graduate degree prior to having kids.  My career was just always second to family/kids in my mind, even before I had kids.

 

I'm working on my graduate degree now, not because I have some driving passion for a career, but because if I'm going to need to earn an income, it might as well be in something I enjoy.

[fraidycat]

I think dh and I would also do well under an arrangement like this, but given how long I've been out of the workforce and dh's comparatively larger earning power, this is pretty much impossible.

I haven't had a chance to watch the video (are there every transcripts of TED Talks?), but I think part of the solution is a more humane set of policies that enables this sort of arrangement - job sharing, requiring that businesses have to take something other than profit margins into consideration (be that through social pressures, marketplace, or legislative) so that externalizing costs/risks is harder, offering paid family leave for both fathers and mothers, affordable health care, better ways to save for retirement, etc.

For all the talk of "family values" we sure don't value the non-paid work that happens at home. Making it possible for men and women to have more equitable share of the stuff of home life would definitely be a step in the right direction.

  

The biggest issue with this is the opportunity cost of working part time in a knowledge based field. We've taken a financial hit when each of us was doing a little bit of work since it's not true that part timers earn proportionally less- ultimately they earn less per hour than they would if they were full time. And part time is usually more like 30-40 hours anyways (as opposed to 50-70+) Also our employer based health care system carries serious disincentives for that to change since each healthcare plan participant is the same high cost so it's better for the company if they pay per employee for as many hours as possible from as few employees as possible instead of paying for producive work hours completed.

Exactly. I don't ever see us being able to make this part-time situation work, financially. However, purely from a reflective standpoint, we would all be better off as a family and as individuals IF our society was set up so that it could work this way. Which is how I interpreted what the whole talk was about - those countries and or U.S. companies who do allow more flexibility for family time and what we, as a society should be striving for, with the overarching theme of allowing men to retain their "manhood" while doing it.

[Audrey]

Defining ones terms really helps in conversations like this.  I think the video does a good job of explaining how "provider" is not a term defined by financial contribution alone, nor need it include financial contribution in its equation. The key is that some cultures understand this, and some, quite sadly, do not.

 

In our marriage there have been times when I have provided the majority of the child rearing needs and he the majority of the financial needs.  There are times when it has been closer to 50/50 and times when it has been the opposite of the initial scenario.  I think it is important that boys understand that there are many roles to play as a husband and father and that nearly all of the roles of parent and partner can be theirs to play. Life deals many hands, none ever the same.  If you don't have the ability to adapt to that, you will have a much harder time, IMO and IME. 

 

 

[Audrey]

I wish we were more free to make decisions based on things other than gender. Talent and interest for example.

 

I think a male being a deadbeat dad is shameful, but I also think a woman expecting a man to do what she isn't willing to do herself is shameful too. Someone has to bring in money, but if he has more desire and talent for being the primary caregiver, she better start providing. It isn't his job because he's a man, it's someone's job because they are both parents.

 

 

I had to re-quote the bolded.  It's just that good.  :D

[kewb]

I think it is about teaching our children that there are choices in life.  Choices about the kind of parent you want to be, choices about career, choices about your future.  Most important, that the future is not written.  Life is not black and white.  There is a whole world of grey.  What makes sense now might not make sense in 10 years.  You have to be flexible.  Adapt, migrate, or die-as my old science teacher used to say.

 

Before you get married you need to talk about children and what you envision.  If you are thinking dad goes to work and mom stays home and the other is thinking whomever has the better benefits/money works and the other stays home you will have problems.  What you envision parenting to look like needs to be spoken about before you tie the knot and start that family.

 

 

[Aelwydd]

I think I was born in the wrong decade. I like the Dad goes to work while Mom cares for the home and children dynamic. Then again, I've never had any desire to be anything other than a mom and homemaker. I should have been born in the 40s. :D

I think the 50's would have suited you better then. In the 40's, women were the ones that kept the factories and businesses going during WWII. They were "drafted" en masse as part of a domestic campaign to keep things going while the menfolk were fighting.

[Joker]

Dh was a stay home dad for several months with oldest dd. I worked while he was job searching after leaving the military. He absolutely loved it, was great at it, and would do it again in a heartbeat. It wasn't feasible long term as his earning power was much higher than mine. He had the degree that I did not. He is still very hands on and does a lot around the house. He has purposely guided his career in the direction he has and aligned himself with the people he has so he will not be one of those that works more than 40 hours (with the rare exception), doesn't travel too much, and can leave when he needs to so he can be there for me and the girls. That means he isn't making as much as he is capable, but he's making more than enough. We were also very fortunate that his career field wasn't hurt at all during the last several years.

 

I grew up with a mom who stayed home but both of my grandmothers worked. One of my grandmothers was the breadwinner in her family and there were never any problems associated with that that I remember. In her case she had the degree that my grandfather did not. He seemed okay with it.

[Ipsey]

My grandmother ran my grandfather off for related reasons.

She immigrated to the US after they married after WWII.

They had one child, and were unable to have any more. My grandmother built up quite a strong business. 

My grandfather felt embarassed that he had no education and didn't bring in as much money as she did, and he didn't want to work in her business because he wanted to be the "man" and provide better than she could.

He tried selling vacuum cleaners door-to-door, and when he failed at that,  he began playing poker. He did well enough at that--for several months, lying that he was still selling vacuums.

Within two years, he had bankrupted the family, and one of the last memories my mother has of him is him driving away in her  little blue jeep that he mother bought her earlier that year for her 16th birthday.

 

 

 

[SKL]

I haven't read the article yet, but I'm about to say something politically incorrect.  A woman is naturally wired to be the breadwinner.  A woman normally will do anything to make sure her kids have their needs met.  It's ingrained in us.  Men, on the other hand, don't seem to be biologically wired this way, not to the same extent on average.  They may be wired to protect the family's territory etc., but not so much to make sure the babies have food and clothes etc.  [Disclaimer - of course there will be a continuum but I'm talking about the overall big picture.]  I think the reason why society pushes men to be "breadwinners" is so the women don't have to carry such a disproportionate share of the responsibility and stress.  Similar to the way we push people to delay satisfying their biological sexual desires so that they can actually support the lives they create.

[DragonFaerie]

I think the 50's would have suited you better then. In the 40's, women were the ones that kept the factories and businesses going during WWII. They were "drafted" en masse as part of a domestic campaign to keep things going while the menfolk were fighting.

 

 

LOL... That's why I said "born" in the 40s.  Then it would be the mid to late 50s by the time I was ready to marry. ;)

[FaithManor]

The average American family is small (1-3 kids) and mothers breastfeed 6 months or so. I am not going to say that is the best way and it is certainly not the only way but in that situation I think the role of biology in our domestic roles is way overstated. Biology means mama's got the breasts; it doesn't explain why dads need to work to the exclusion of being hands on with 8 year old children. It doesn't explain why FT working mothers still do most all of the housework and have less leisure time than FT working dads. Hell, it doesn't explain why working mothers is a term in common usage and working dads is a phrase that falls oddly on the ears.

While I agree, it comes down to the market workplace and supports in terms of why women are out when there are older children even if her husband's earning power is equal to or less than hers. She HAS to take time off to birth and physically recover. She either pumps at work - many, many jobs are NOT accommodating of this and can't be made to accommodate this either - or she stays home for six months to breastfeed, or she's going to have to formula feed (nothing wrong with that but a growing number of mothers want to BF). We have no safety net that actually guarantees her job is held and especially if she works for a business with less than 75 employees because small business don't have enough profit margin to hold positions open  or fill in for more than a couple of weeks with temps. Their margins are too tight.

 

In the U.S. 3 months of leave from companies with more than 75 employees is the rule, even then, it's not uncommon for employers to find ways to "punish" the employee for taking that off - ask my sister who took six weeks when my dad had his two surgeries and dd had her surgery in between his. The boss became extremely hostile in the hopes she'd quit because he felt that taking this time off meant she was not loyal enough to the company.

 

What happens is that often the birthing woman takes a year off from the workforce and comes back to find her job is gone, and the ding on her resume for doing it doesn't help her finding new employment. The system definitely whammies the parent who has to carry and birth the child. The man, on the other hand, even if he saves out a couple of weeks paid vacation to be off with his wife when the baby is born, goes back to work quickly with no hits on his income and position in the company.

 

I've known several women with only two children who chose to have them close together so they could limit their time out of the workforce. They went back to work when the youngest was weaned at 1 year...so roughly 3 at most 4 yrs. out of the workforce only to find that they weren't going to get back into their previous companies even when there were openings doing the exact same thing they had previously done, and were consistently turned down when interviewing at other companies despite stellar resumes. Bottom line, HR departments and bosses look for women devoted to the career first, and they aren't looking for someone who might consider that she wants to have another baby and take time off again. They can't ask if she wants more children because that's illegal, but they certainly will consider a man over a woman in her younger child bearing years and especially if she has young children so the threat (in their minds) of her possibly deciding to have another one is very real. It is discrimination and it happens A LOT. However, when there are several applicants for the same position, it is not generally possible to prove unless the interview says something blatant.

[SKL]

I think it's kind of closed-minded the way she implies that most men are conditioned to play "king of the mountain" all the time.  Some men do this, as do some women (woman can be incredibly competitive), but I don't think it's true of the majority of either sex. Most men I've known are happy to go to work in a plain old nine-to-five job as long as they make enough money to pay the bills and nobody is constantly eating their heads.

 

I am not a "feminist" in that I have always hated the implication that success for women equals winning the "king of the mountain" game, or playing the game "like a man" (and downplaying anything naturally feminine).  And, men who are not stupid actually know that women are just as valuable as men.  I worked in the corporate world, including leadership levels, for decades, so I'm not talking out my butt.

[SKL]

Actually, I find it a bit ridiculous that the woman felt she needed to do a speech about why she made a choice that was important for her family.  Both men and women do this every day.  Who told her that making the overall best choice should be a disappointment to herself or others?  As a single mom I make such choices continually, and I don't think it's newsworthy.  But then again, I'm not a feminist so I don't have an image to uphold.

[JustEm]

I just don't see men being SAHD's as a social issue in my area so I didn't find this talk insightful at all.  In my experience people accept basically any role that you as the parent choose to take.  I know that is not the case everywhere or with everyone.  But with the way our society is shifting I don't see it as anything that needs help.  I think initially the transition will raise eyebrows (as every significant change does)  but as more people see it as an option less people will think anything of it.  

[JustEm]

Actually, I find it a bit ridiculous that the woman felt she needed to do a speech about why she made a choice that was important for her family.  Both men and women do this every day.  Who told her that making the overall best choice should be a disappointment to herself or others?  As a single mom I make such choices continually, and I don't think it's newsworthy.  But then again, I'm not a feminist so I don't have an image to uphold.

 

 

Well that was a huge thing with the feminist movement when it began.  It was of the mindset that if you didn't work outside the home you were doing the wrong/patriarchal thing. My mother has talked to me about this a lot recently because she has watched her 3 daughters all choose to be SAHMs and regrets that as a feminist from her era that was not an option for her. She says the only thing in her life she would change if she could was to actually consider if working full time was what was most important for her and our family rather then be told/believing that working was her only option in order not to be oppressed. 

[SKL]

Well that was a huge thing with the feminist movement when it began.  It was of the mindset that if you didn't work outside the home you were doing the wrong/patriarchal thing. My mother has talked to me about this a lot recently because she has watched her 3 daughters all choose to be SAHMs and regrets that as a feminist from her era that was not an option for her. She says the only thing in her life she would change if she could was to actually consider if working full time was what was most important for her and our family rather then be told/believing that working was her only option in order not to be oppressed. 

 

I could be wrong, but I thought she was saying she was going to work closer to home, not that she was going to become a SAHM.

 

But I agree with your comments.  This is one reason why the movement never appealed to me.

 

[SKL]

Well, unfortunately if women do choose to stay at home for long periods of time, they are doing themselves a financial disservice. The fact many women choose to do it anyway speaks to strong desires to actively mother full time, despite the financial loss. I think that if we want to reform society, we might like to take account of the fact that continuing to do work in spite of not being paid, speaks to the intrinsic value of the work. Value that society should stop taking advantage of.

 

I totally agree with your point about intrinsic value.  But, by definition, intrinsic value does not need to be connected to $$.

[Serenade]

I think it is about teaching our children that there are choices in life.  Choices about the kind of parent you want to be, choices about career, choices about your future.  Most important, that the future is not written.  Life is not black and white.  There is a whole world of grey.  What makes sense now might not make sense in 10 years.  You have to be flexible.  Adapt, migrate, or die-as my old science teacher used to say.

 

Before you get married you need to talk about children and what you envision.  If you are thinking dad goes to work and mom stays home and the other is thinking whomever has the better benefits/money works and the other stays home you will have problems.  What you envision parenting to look like needs to be spoken about before you tie the knot and start that family.

This exactly. I wouldn't have been interested in marrying a man who would have wanted me to be the main breadwinner, or who would have wanted me to provide half of our income, or who would have put pressure on me to go to work because, hey, he has to. Then again, I didn't get married until I was 32. Now, I will say, if there was a need, and my husband could no longer provide, or he lost his job, then I would pick up the slack as best I could. I wouldn't want him to work himself to death or to ill health.

[kiwik]

I jumped to the end because I realised that in the US your first job is to do something about your maternity leave situation. In NZ we do not have the very generous stuff some countries have BUT we have 16 weeks paid leave (capped at about the minimum full time wage so not great but a help) paid out of the general income tax so employers pay their share whether they employ women or not. The employer is required to keep your job open (or one of the same rank and pay) for 12 months with the remainder being unpaid. It doesn't always work - my job while having the same title and pay changed hugely while I was on leave due to a management and computer systems change. It changed enough that it really wasn't the same job though legally it was. I know of similar cases happening too but I did have a job while I sorted things out. Employers are also required to provide somewhere to express and are supposed to grant flexible hours requests unless there is a valid reason not to. Eg. A shop that opens at 8.30 can say you cant move your start time to 9 to allow for school but a job where it really doesn't matter should say yes. Once again it is not always adhered to and women often won't ask in case they lose their bosses good will but the law is there. I also don't know anyone who has asked my workplace to provide somewhere to express.

 

75 is a fairly decent sized business here - probably medium-large.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I haven't read the article yet, but I'm about to say something politically incorrect.  A woman is naturally wired to be the breadwinner.  A woman normally will do anything to make sure her kids have their needs met.  It's ingrained in us.  Men, on the other hand, don't seem to be biologically wired this way, not to the same extent on average.  They may be wired to protect the family's territory etc., but not so much to make sure the babies have food and clothes etc.  [Disclaimer - of course there will be a continuum but I'm talking about the overall big picture.]  I think the reason why society pushes men to be "breadwinners" is so the women don't have to carry such a disproportionate share of the responsibility and stress.  Similar to the way we push people to delay satisfying their biological sexual desires so that they can actually support the lives they create.

 

While I can see a thread of logic in some of what you've said, the idea that society has pushed men to be breadwinners so women don't have to seem historically questionable, at best.  What is you evidence that society has pushed men to be breadwinners as a favor to women?   While we'e at it, which society -- American, Asian, 18th century Britain?  

 

As far as women having a genetic predisposition for child care, how might you square that with the 1740 cases of filicide each year (source NCANDS 2008).  Are these genetic, rather than psycho/social anomalies?

 

As for pushing people to delay fulfilling sexual desires, do you mean Planned Parenthood, you know with all those picket signs out front (granted the three people outside my local branch look like they could a tiff drink and a place to sit).  Is this push of which you speak universal, and how's it going in the inner city?  I always like to read original data, geek that I am, so please post those links if you got 'em!

[LucyStoner]

Defining ones terms really helps in conversations like this. I think the video does a good job of explaining how "provider" is not a term defined by financial contribution alone, nor need it include financial contribution in its equation. The key is that some cultures understand this, and some, quite sadly, do not.

 

In our marriage there have been times when I have provided the majority of the child rearing needs and he the majority of the financial needs. There are times when it has been closer to 50/50 and times when it has been the opposition of the initial scenario. I think it is important that boys understand that there are many roles to play as a husband and father and that nearly all of the roles of parent and partner can be theirs to play. Life deals many hands, none ever the same. If you don't have the ability to adapt to that, you will have a much harder time, IMO and IME.

Exactly. I feel the way that we use the term provider elevates the person making the money and devalues all of the other ways people provide for their families. I used to bring in well over 1/2 of our cash income. Now I bring in a tiny fraction of it with very part time consulting and contracting work. But instead of outsourcing childcare or paying the price of opposite schedules, I provide nearly all of that myself now. I have always made a full contribution of my time, work, talents and energy. My husband had always done the same. We don't keep score on who provides what when and it rarely has anything to do with our biological sex.

[JustEm]

I could be wrong, but I thought she was saying she was going to work closer to home, not that she was going to become a SAHM.

 

But I agree with your comments.  This is one reason why the movement never appealed to me.

 

 

You may be right but I had a crying baby in my arms as I watched it.  But even still.  She felt that working farther away was the only option she had because it meant furthering her career. So in her case she would be doing an injustice to herself not to strive to further her career as much as she could and anything less would be seen as oppressive.  

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

In the TED vid, the speaker is coming from a rarefied world - DC job, house in Princeton. Maybe not the fabled 1%, but prob the 10%. The alpha males in her circle do take the their gender roles to the max, me thinks, and in that circle, I could see little motivation for change. More hopful was the quip about employers in (Finland?) looking askance at male applicants who did not take their alloted family leave.

 

That speaks of positive culture shift....over there.

 

The flip side, here's the American dad, brought to you by Cadillac:

 

http://youtu.be/qGJSI48gkFc

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Exactly. I feel the way that we use the term provider elevates the person making the money and devalues all of the other ways people provide for their families.

And she makes that point in the vid. Unitl the professions are looked at more equally, the perceptions won't change. The same argument can be used for the high perceptions of Finland's teachers.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Women may not have a genetic predisposition for childcare, but the fact that they gestate and breastfeed are biological realities.

 

Society, men and capitalist feminists need to recognise that and stop proposing 'solutions' that disrupt maternal relationships.

Yes, there are genuine biological realities I can not match. Yet I was home with DD at 4 months, so how might you measure the amount of disruption to the maternal relationship? How might it be measured with two gay men and an adopted infant?

[SKL]

If people stopped breathing the air, the human race would die out.  That doesn't mean people need to be paid for breathing air.

 

Being maternal is natural for most women.  It's easier to do it than to not do it.  If any woman needs to be paid to feel motivated to care for her child, that is a problem.

[SKL]

While I can see a thread of logic in some of what you've said, the idea that society has pushed men to be breadwinners so women don't have to seem historically questionable, at best.  What is you evidence that society has pushed men to be breadwinners as a favor to women?   While we'e at it, which society -- American, Asian, 18th century Britain?  

 

As far as women having a genetic predisposition for child care, how might you square that with the 1740 cases of filicide each year (source NCANDS 2008).  Are these genetic, rather than psycho/social anomalies?

 

As for pushing people to delay fulfilling sexual desires, do you mean Planned Parenthood, you know with all those picket signs out front (granted the three people outside my local branch look like they could a tiff drink and a place to sit).  Is this push of which you speak universal, and how's it going in the inner city?  I always like to read original data, geek that I am, so please post those links if you got 'em!

 

To your first paragraph, there are many examples I could point out.  In traditional agrarian cultures, it's the mom who strapped the baby on her back and spent the day in the fields cultivating enough food for herself and her kids to eat.  Another example is the crisis that is often discussed in modern black families where there is a big question of how to get black men to act like fathers to their children.  I've never heard of any population where moms needed to be somehow socialized differently so they would care about their children.

 

To your second paragraph, that is an extremely tiny number in the grand scheme of things, and men as well as women commit filicide.  The fact that there are crazy and evil people in the world does not seem relevant to the conversation.

 

To your third paragraph, planned parenthood did not even cross my mind.  My point was that sometimes society encourages people to act against their biological tendencies.  People's natural tendency is to have sex early and often, but society doesn't want that because it causes problems.  I didn't say society was entirely successful in delaying sex (or pregnancy), but the social pressure does make some difference for sure.  There are many young people who reach adulthood without being sexually active.  Another example of society encouraging people to go against their biological tendencies is the expectation of complete monogamy.  I'm sure a little thought could produce a significant list of other examples.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is.  If you want to talk about data, then why not show me the "data" that proves men are as predisposed to care for kids as women are.