Childcare: the hot potato in the political world

The froth whipped up by the Caroline Spelman story would be funny if it's weren't so damning about the country's attitudes toward childcare. So here's the deal: More than a decade ago a working mother pays her nanny extra - during school hours when the children aren't there - to work at her home office opening mail, filing and answering phones? Then she stopped doing it. It's hardly hookers and cocaine, is it? Ironically, she would have been better off spending more of the taxpayers' money hiring a separate person to do these time-consuming but essential tasks.

Yet what strikes me is that - with the exception of David Blunkett's "nannygate" - it's only professional women who are swept up into nanny scandals. Don't male politicians have young children as well? Yes, but of course it's the mothers who organise childcare. Ultimately it's still the woman's responsibility. And in the male-dominated political world, that's the root of our problems with childcare.

We still have to pay childminders out of taxed income and until recently couldn't use childcare vouchers for nannies. As the Guardian says today: "Gordon Brown was promising a national childcare strategy that would deliver affordable, accessible, high quality care to all. Ten years on, that's one more promise he has failed to keep."

The piece goes on to say,

Whatever the outcome of Spelgate, among her critics there might also exist just a touch of ambivalence. It's a bit rum that in a profession awash with allowances, including the cost of staying away from home, office expenses and a London supplement, there's no allowance for the one job that should matter as much if not more: someone to care for the children.

The general outcry about the affair is not just a little hypocritical, considering how many people pay for their childcare in cash or under the table, or regularly jiggle the numbers - giving the nanny £100 "grocery money" every week to buy some milk and bread. We have to realise that our attitudes about childcare directly relate to our attitudes about working women.

The Times Libby Purves writes, "However much the nation pretends it wants their skills, working mothers are still the bottom of the heap."

Maybe that's why I can't get worked up into a lather about Spelman. Giles Chichester paid hundreds of thousands to a company in which he was a director and now we're talking about paying someone - not a family member, not one's self indirectly but a nanny - to do a little bit on the side. I wonder if Spelman would have fared better if she'd hired the woman as a personal assistant and paid her for babysitting on the side.

Comments

[Jo]

I think you will find that most of those places where they got the vote early had a history of campaigning women - not just for suffrage but temperance groups (especially in the US) etc. Also a lot of countries eg Canada put restrictions in for the new women voters and in the case of Canada they wer only lifted I the 50’s. NZ, Canada and Australia couldn't give women full suffrage because they were still being bossed about by the UK so major decisions like going to war were taken abroad and they couldn’t influence the elections in the UK but when they got their own governments there was already a precedent for female suffrage.
Just noticed that women didn't get full suffrage in Switzerland till 1970!

[Delilah]

Cooo, knock me down with a feather. The Norwegians I know all seem to be divorced or separated. Alcohol or drug addiction is a common reason, but so is incompatibility. But then they don't seem inclined to marry or remarry as much as Brits. Remarriages are far more prone to divorce than first marriages. The Henry VIII syndrome.

When Norwegians do divorce, the fathers do seem to stick around and do at least 50% care. I don't know any divorced Norwegian with a "clean break". If one partner is incapable - alcoholic - the alcoholic's family does his/her share pending the alcoholic's 12-step recovery program. Basically, raising children isn't seen as "women's work" but as a family privilege and responsibility. Which I suppose makes remarriage and spawning a whole new family less attractive, and also less necessary. So maybe this does have a tangential bearing on adultery and affairs, after all!

Intersting about votes for women in NZ. I see Australia and Canada were close seconds; the US didn't get universal suffrage until 1920, but certain states gave women the vote from 1757. Finland and Russia led the way in Europe. Britain got universal suffrage in 1928. At (British) school, I was taught that pioneer cultures were macho and relegated women to inferior roles, but my experience is quite the reverse. You can't relegate a woman to an inferior role when the two of you have to build a farm together from scratch. I'm fond of pointing out that Britain's first female MP was, in fact, American - Nancy Astor - elected in 1919. (Don't know how she managed that, at the time only single women over 30 could vote - maybe she was a widow?) According to the biography I read, as an American she was quite used to the idea of a woman in politics but also quite unprepared for the rabid misogyny she would be forced to experience in the House of Commons for being "unnatural" and "unfeminine".

[Gipsy]

OK I know you're just talking about Europe, but just thought I'd mention that NZ gave women the vote in 1893.

[j]

thats very interesting as Delilah thought that divorce ratyes in Norway would be much higher than here. Your figures (Jo) make more sense as they argue that marriages are failing less, with the changes in behaviour, or that people are only getting married under circs where they are content to do so. Thats much more reassuring that we had feared from Delilah's original analysis.

[Jo]

Women did war work (men's work) in countries like france during WW1 but it was the countries with a strong established suffrage movement that gave women the vote first - UK 1918 (1928 same basis as men), France 1944.
I just went and looked up the statistics (yes I am procrastinating) and the divorce rate is actually a lot lower in Norway (3/1000 rather than 12/1000. Divorce rates in Europe have all been going up because isn't seen as a bad thing for men or women to do and women can look after themselves a lot more now. These are legal and cultural changes that have taken time but don't really just happen on their own it has been a long hard slog in many cases.

[j]

Jo, what do you think about why they are still divorcing?

[Jo]

From studying the Votes for Women movement in the UK at school and comparing it with other European countries it was quite clear that the most vocal, active women got the vote and I think that would still stand today. This makes me agree with Delilah about why Norway is pushing forward with more equality laws - the women are perhaps more assertive than in other countries and Norwegian men are supportive of this. I think you have to be feisty first to get the laws.

[j]

I also wonder if it is chicken or egg, then: either Norwegians are more feisty to start with and they both get their laws sorted out, and are independently also more likely to divorce, or whether the laws help people to survive better after divorce so the divorce rate is higher.

What seems to be interesting is that these men- who do sound very well-trained- are still being divorced by their wives. Presumably it's not for not doing their share? I'd be very interested to know what is behind the observation here that even when social systems are redesigned to remove some of the basic inequalities, divorce continues to be high- even grows. I'd be sorry to think that the problem was intractable and that changing laws doesnt help at all, and even sorrier to think that it actually made it worse.

Two things would be fascinating, if you know them anecdotally. In Norway, are men or women more likely to initiate the divorce? and do people cite other factors, such as drink, or is it the same range of issues as people cite here?

[Delilah]

Oh, Katie, I see. You're saying that perhaps Norwegian women are more assertive because the patriarchy decided to give them (and their children) better legal protection. Think about that one for a minute. It seems more likely to me that Norway had better laws (if indeed they did) because the patriarchy making the laws had been raised (by Norwegian women) to see equal treatment for women and respect for the wishes of the children as entirely natural. And British lawmakers at the time did not, because they were raised to expect women and children to be forced, if necessary, into subservient and powerless positions at home.

It all starts at home. Not in the courts.

[Delilah]

J, I can't be arsed to look it up, but I think I'm safe in saying the divorce rate in Norway is comfortably higher than in Britain.

[Delilah]

Kate, I think you're confusing my post with Supermother's. I'm the Norwegian Battleaxe expert and couldn't agree more with your analysis of British divorce laws. See my posts on the adultery thread and my numerous plugs for Professor Stone's marvellous treatise on the subject, "The Road to Divorce" (available second-hand on Amazon for not very much money).

Some time ago I posted the following Norwegian divorce story(friends of my b-i-l): the divorcing couple transferred the marital home into the names of their three children, and arranged to spend equal time living at the house caring for them; and the remainder elsewhere (rented, staying with Mum, girlfriend, whatever). The children had a vote about who got to sleep over, and when. When the eldest child reached 21, the house was to be sold and the proceeds divided between the children. Funky, eh?

[Kate]

Delilah, until recently (as in, just over a century) in this country women had no rights whatsoever to their children on separation, even if the father had been adulterous and violent. And unless a woman appeared to be sexually virtuous, the courts sided with the father in custody hearings until really quite recently - certainly 40 years ago, they still could. So I think female wariness of courts on child-related issues is pretty understandable, if unnecessary.

I also tend to dispute that courts side with women on principle, rather than the facts in each case. Courts, when children are concerned, tend to side with the status quo, and women do usually have far more day-to-day childcare responsibility. A primary carer will almost always be awarded residence, so as not to disrupt the child's existing life, and that's usually Mum. It can be Dad, and if so he'll probably get residence. The guiding principle is what's best for the children, not female supremacy.

As to the Spelman issue - it staggers me that so many people are so outraged. If buying a rockery installing a state-of-the-art shower or kitchen, and getting windows cleaned weekly are all within the rules, surely childcare shouldn't be outside them? The allowances are astonishingly generous, sure, but it seems a pretty bizarre place to draw the line.

[J]

"My mother thinks it has to do with generations of women running everything alone while men were off a-Viking, but whatever it is, it is responsible for the state of Scandinavian society - not the laws. It may be one reason for the mammoth divorce rate, of course.
"

Delilah thats very interesting. Did you mean the mammoth divorce rate here, or in Norway?

[Lucie M]

Just a little, out-of-context point:

Bob: "And I defy anyone to believe that a woman breastfeeding her child does not develop a stronger bond with the child than the father can even dream of."

I take up your challenge :-) as somebody who has always had a much stronger bond with her father. I'd say it's one of those things you can't make blanket statements about. I don't think a few weeks/months of breastfeeding (and not all mothers breast feed, of course) can count so much in the grand scheme of things (yes, I know it promotes the release of the hormone oxytocin, but I don't believe that's a permanent fix - after all, sex does the same and that hardly guarantees a permanent bond). Just as, say, men are taller than women in general but some women are taller than some men, it is true that some men are more fitted to parenting than some women. My father was always a very natural, 'wise', fun and self-sacrificing parent, whereas my mother was not really cut out for parenting, too self-centred. And yes, she breast-fed me! It was my father who brought me up after they divorced. Although my mother and I live close by, we don't often speak - not through bitterness, but we just don't have that bond. She never phoned the house in case my dad picked up, but she never phoned my mobile either and now of course I am grown-up and still no sign of interest...

Excuse the essay, it's not that relevant, just couldn't let the assumption lie!

[Delilah]

I don't have a single problem with sex discrimination laws - and I would agree, up to a point, with affirmative action laws to get women into management - but I have HUGE problem with laws that discriminate AGAINST men who opt to take on "female" roles so that their women can work freely. Of which Britain is rife. Largely because women themselves seem completely uninterested handing over any control at home, and keen on any state initiative which keeps the buggy out of men's hands.

Norway is different because Norwegian women are different (I should know, my sister married a Norwegian) - they are TERRYIFYING. No man would dare to expect a Norwegian woman to accept less than a man, or to cut them any slack at all when it comes to duties at home. There would be no debate, no humoring, he would be simply marched to the sink (or the baby, or whatever) and expected to get on with it. My mother thinks it has to do with generations of women running everything alone while men were off a-Viking, but whatever it is, it is responsible for the state of Scandinavian society - not the laws. It may be one reason for the mammoth divorce rate, of course.

[supermother]

legal changes have underpinned women's rights. They were badly needed and still are across much of this sexist planet. Women could not vote. Married women could not own property. All that had to be changed. Until 1970 there was no right to equal pay for equal work. No sex discrimination laws. We really really needed those changes. Cynics will say laws are changed like that when there is a business case for them and that may well be so but the law was needed.

I would now like a requirement that 40% of boards in the UK are female. We need the kick. I know how people are appointed to boards. People go through a semblance of good corporate governance, publicly advertise but then appoint someone like them.

The positive discrimination so inimical to many women has not damaged them in Norway and elsewhere. Client are helping too in requiring their advisers to show to prove their lack of discrimination. It's all getting better but not quite fast enough largely because women are so very silly in losing gains which have been hard won.

What we really do need most of all in terms of legislative chance is non transferable paternity leave and pay - use it or lose it. This government has delayed laws already made which would have given men 6 months paternity leave (albeit on the usual female pittance rate) which they could take after the mother's 6 months.

But even more key is for women to marry men who earn less, to marry down not up. It is the marrying up which is the main reason women give up work to become dull unpaid domestic servants at home because the economic choice is always to have the woman at home as she earns less. Women seek the wealthier stable provider. I don't see that changing as it's in their psyche and probably in their genes but I would like to be wrong.

[j]

But my question again - If it is so, why the need for the law????? (which is the main point I am arguing)

Bob very briefly- what is the need for law that prevents the sale of dangerous or substandard goods? Answer: it can briefly pay some individual companies to sell fraudulent rubbish, but also they are tempted into foolishly bad behaviour by being frankly poorly advised and not very good at business.

Maternity leave is at that basic level of health and safety proection. Many companies go well beyond that, there is no law to make them, and as you rightly say, the economic case for doing more is strong enough on its own.

[Lazy Mummy]

KM - Glad the blog's working again. I'll catch up with it over the weekend (and thank you for letting me know).

[Delilah]

Trust a feminist to put the boot into lazy slob women, when a bigger problem is lazy slob men, who still expect Mummy to sort out nursery pickups, laundry, cleaning, and dinner regardless of what she does at work. And of course control-freak women who want - to - DO - it - ALL.

Men don't work to set a good example to their sons or justify their education or even to please their wives, they work to make money and satisfy themselves. Women should do the same. If they don't find the work as satisfying as being at home, and don't need the money, then I'd say there is no obligation - NONE - to work.

I've already posted on tax, and find it very curious how relaxed the posters are about the obscene levels of taxation that working mothers are burdened with. Don't you care? Do you really believe that it's all going to help women, rather than paying for a cancerous bureaucracy that feeds off and in fact promotes their inequality?

[Nicky Rodgers]

Paying her Nanny to make the phone calls gives more time for mother to spend with the children when they are home. Living abroad when my children was a valuable time - I could afford to have staff do the housework while I enjoyed activities with the children.

Leave mothers alone to work out how they use the available staff. On the whole we how to use this privelige to best effect.

[Nicky Rodgers]

Paying her Nanny to make the phone calls gives more time for mother to spend with the children when they are home. Living abroad when my children was a valuable time - I could afford to have staff do the housework while I enjoyed activities with the children.

Leave mothers alone to work out how they use the available staff. On the whole we how to use this privelige to best effect.

[Sarah]

And that would be 'preferable' not 'oreferable' of course.

[Sarah]

"what I object to is the immense expense demanded, by law, of the employer and taxpayer so that the woman can be both mother and career-person"

I can't speak for employers, but as a tax payer I don't object to paying for a society where people can be good parents and also have a career. Why shouldn't women be mothers and 'career-people'? Very few of us want to be just one or the other. The same goes for men, surely it's oreferable to not have to choose between being a good father and having a good career? Women have suffered badly from workplace discrimination and limited opportunities, but also plenty of men have missed out on being with their children because of the obligation to single-handedly 'provide' for the whole family. In a good relationship, you are partners, you share both the burdens and the joys of life with each other.

No there will probably never be complete equality in this situation between women and men (or women who give birth and those who don't, in the case of same-sex relationships) because the biology is not equal - there will always be the need for time to physically recover from the birth and any complications, and to establish breastfeeding etc. That's just the way it is, and I don't think anyone is really objecting to that! But surely it's reasonable that, since people *do* generally have children, and people do generally need to work for a living, that we try to come up with sensible ways of making these two things compatible?

I feel it's in my interest to make this work, and in the interest of society as a whole. And despite short-term costs, surely it's generally in the interests of business not to lose good, talented people just because they also want to have children?

[Gipsy]

Bob - the law is there to give a fair chance to women. Biologically, we don't have much choice but to be the one who has the child, and if for no other reason, some physical recovery time needs to occur. There also needs to be some time for the mother and baby to spend together.

We also have laws that give employees sick leave, paternity leave and paid holiday time.

It is in a company's best interests to provide these things - it helps them retain valuable staff who are the people that make money for them. And indeed most companies do pay more than the statutory minimum for that very reason. Which shows that it does indeed work in their favour to have these benefits for employees. But, if that's the case, then why do we need those laws in the first place as well?

Because not all companies are that concerned about their staff or see the value of practicing business this way. And without these laws, a great many people mostly at the lower socio-economic end of society wouldn't receive even the most basic benefits, and the people that need them the most are the ones who need their jobs the most - and we need them to be in employment as well. The alternative is to have a permanent underclass FORCED into being, who have no choice but to live on welfare and handouts. I know that you can argue that this has already happened - but I'm talking about it happening to people who would otherwise be working, tax paying, productive members of society.

[Bob Finbow]

J, To your 14:07:36 post. I don't dispute some companies may decide it pays them. But my question again - If it is so, why the need for the law????? (which is the main point I am arguing)

I have to sign off now but I'll be back!

Have a good weekend

[j]

Sorry, one point I forgot. Bob asked: "can only reiterate – if providing such largesse were in the company’s interests, what possible reason would they have for failing to do so?"

Bob, the minimum kit is 6 weeks at 90% pay and the right to ask for (not get) flexible working.

Many companies do provide well over this because...er..it pays them to do so. QED I'm afraid.

[j]

Lucy is right about the conflict between domestic work being valuable in its own right and the other aims of feminism. I wont go as far as Supermother but then who does ;)?

If I take the clumsy point that offended Jean and make it more sensibly, I would say that we could take two women, whom we will call Jonathan and Peter so nobody feels I mean them. Born in 1940, as adults Jonathan is a lazy and exploitative women who does nothing for anyone else. Peter is a hardworking fulltime wife who contributes to voluntary work, helps neighbours and provides a good home. Fast forward to generation x. Jonny, born 1984, is still a lazy person and she is a single mother on benefits for the house. Peta is also a single mum, using the time to retrain and think about her life. They are to be found in different parts of society, because society has changed, but my point is that the incidence of selfish laziness has not risen with the change in society, it has just migrated to different groups that Bob finds more visible.

How might we decide which of us, Bob or me, is right? Bob I think has evaluated the economic damage to society from the culture he finds alien, on a basis which seems to me emotional rather than economic. Now that's understandable but possibly not rigorous. SM is right that 6 weeks on 90% pay is a trivial benefit and the cost to society of other behaviours- such as, eg, high-risk lending strategies (Northern Rock) internet bubbles, high-polluting industry, etc is quite possibly more. An economist would probably say that an educated women creates more wealth over a working life, even with some time spent not directly economically productive at home, than a less educated and productive woman (or man) who never has time off for a child. Certainly a women who decides not to earn money over a 50 year period will create wealth very differently from an employed one, if at all.

[Bob Finbow]

Mrs KL. In that sense so can women. If they get a partner who will finance them through pregnancy and who will become the househusband afterwards and if, as is so frequently claimed, the woman is so good at her job that the employer wants her back, she is in precisely the same position as the man, except for the additional benefit (if benefit she considers it) of actually giving birth to her child. If you read all my posts, I have nothing against the man taking the "female" role - what I object to is the immense expense demanded, by law, of the employer and taxpayer so that the woman can be both mother and career-person.

[Mrs L]

Actually, the men I know all stick around to support their children, live with them, generally enjoy them. So actually, they can have babies and careers too.
Seeing the talents and skills of half the population go to waste because they happen to be the ones who carry the babies for nine months is bonkers.

[Bob Finbow]

Mrs L. Men cannot "have it all". They cannot have babies. They can take part in creating a baby, but only if a women consents to allow them to. And in return they are (or at least were until the last few decades) expected to work continuously to support that woman and child. What you are saying is that men are responsible for female biology. I'm sorry but I cannot agree

[Mrs L]

Bob, you say: "When we get to these laws that favour only one part of the population, they represent superstructure that is so highly placed that it makes the whole unstable."

I would argue that one part of the population is unfairly favoured without these regulations. I don't think it is fair that men can "have it all" - ie babies and careers etc - if women can't. A civilised society strives to correct that imbalance because, as we know, women are intelligent human beings with much more to contribute to society than just childbearing. Therefore these regulations do in fact benefit us all - not just women. I simply can't agree with your portrayal of women as grasping, "i must have everything I want" types, because I simply have never met any women like that. We want to put something back just as much as men do.

[Bob Finbow]

Mrs L. Good to have yet another respondent to discuss with (although I fear I will shortly have to abandon spending so much time on the blog - even I have to do housework sometimes!). I can take your point about businesses requiring an up and coming generation to from which to select their future staff. However, I am not arguing that they should have no involvement in providing opportunities for the local population. I am arguing that such requirements should not be enforced by laws because those making the laws are simply unqualified to determine what is required. I can only reiterate – if providing such largesse were in the company’s interests, what possible reason would they have for failing to do so? It seems that your standpoint makes business a subsidiary of Social Services. This is not their function. The idea that the state should direct and finance such aspects of life if what underpins Communism, and that ideology, highly altruistic in its inception, has been shown to a total failure in terms of its actual application. State intervention regarding business and, in particular, agriculture, has led to widespread famine in countries that have enormous potential.
Your second point, regarding laws in general I would also take issue with to some extent (being an argumentative old man:-)). I agree that we have laws to prevent chaos. I would put it that laws are made to encourage social stability. I would, however, disagree that there is a sameness about laws such as outlawing murder and burglary, and the sociologically-driven laws we are discussing here. Laws that benefit every citizen equally generally aid stability. Those laws that are themselves essentially discriminatory and benefit only one part of the community encourage instability because they generate simmering antagonism
If I may wax lyrical for a moment on something I have thought deeply about, I would liken human societies to an old fashioned sailing ship. Our basic natures – “red in tooth and claw” to quote Tennyson – are the ballast below the waterline. It is totally stable because that is what we have evolved to be. BUT it is self-limiting since it is wholly selfish and, in no small part, destructive. What allows us as a species to carry a much greater population than nature itself would allow (and therefore have specialists capable of abstract thinking and building) is the low level superstructure, giving extra space but not destabilising the ship so much as to make it unmanageable. These are the Laws, social rules and regulations that apply to, and favour, all. When we get to these laws that favour only one part of the population, they represent superstructure that is so highly placed that it makes the whole unstable. In such a situation, sooner or later, an emergency will arise which the ship is too unstable to ride out, and catastrophe will ensue. Right now, we are carrying too much topsail. I see it all around in the rising level of public dissatisfaction and anger at the government’s socially driven laws. The danger is that it plays directly into the hands of the extremes of the political spectrum, whether left or right. If (or when) these extremists gain power, the very people whom these social laws are intended to protect, will be the main target of the new regimes.

OK, I will now get off my soapbox:-)

[supermother]

I don't think we have very preferential terms. 6 weeks at 90% pay compared to men of 2 weeks on I think full pay paternity leave. A right to take time off on a state pittance of £112 a week os not really a massive benefit unless you're very very beta woman working as a cleaner on the minimum wage. For most middle class people with mortgages and existing child care to pay for other children it's the 6 weeks on 90% pay that helps you but not what then follows.

I took 2 weeks holiday to have children as I didn't believe in preferential benefits to women as they damage the cause of women ultimately and also can mean women end up in dull domestic roles because their men understandably for financial reasons make the women take the leave. But I certainly think even up to 3 months on full pay would not be unfair on men or women particularly because only women breastfeed. (I expressed milk at work).

On feminism and housework there always was that debate - do we say horrible patriarchal world, women will play no part in that and will instead follow some kind of communist nirvana where no one works, leads or whatever (that never works because it's against human nature and even female nature) or do we simply want women and men to be able to compete equally in the work place which has always been my own definition and desire.

If the women and men are as likely to run the hedge fund or whatever then you have the domestic issues to sort out. This is where women need to assert themselves. Never let yourself be the mug who does everything at home. You're not only damaging yourself but also your daughters and other women and should be publicly flogged for your folly in allowing a sexist home to arise. Do something about this today. Make things fair. Ensure it's as likely the man as the woman advertise for and hire the nanny. If I and my children's father could do that in 1984 I don't see why women can't do it in 2008 and it's easier these days too as most men now are not brought up by sexist parents and realise they as much as their wife will have to get home first to let the nanny go home etc depending on who has the more important meetings that afternoon.

As for housework, yes to some extent most people from time to time quite like pottering around the house or cooking. I have always liked a tidy home as did my ex husband who was slightly better than I was domestically but it's not work. It's something all adults have to do, keetping the house tidy, putting the washing away and you fit it into a working life rather than elevating it to some fake position of super career. By valuing domestic service like that you are in effect lying that it's anything much of any value (the market proves it's not as it's so badly paid and anyone with half a brain can see it's dull and not a proper career).

[BJ Morgan]

Having had the dubious pleasure of meeting Ms Spelman a few months ago, I cant only snigger loudly after the excrement has finally hit the fan.

Speaking in front of 20 trainee journalists, Ms Spelman reacted to our questions with mild indifference. During the course of the Q&A I was surprised her halo didnt fall to her neck and choke her. She presented a whiter than white figure who had overcome a male dominated environment without deceit or the usual deluge of hypocrisy normally associated with such a political animal.

Regardless of the reasons behind her actions, she has betrayed herself by
being just as mucky as her male cohorts.

No excuses.

[Lucy (getting pissed off with the internet)]

Lazy Mummy - yes, it is a difficult balance. I think I am very much a product of my age, and I have never really experienced a kind of feminism that is eager to value 'housework'. It seems clear to me both that typical house (or car!) maintenance tasks are can be satisfying to some of us. It also seems clear that early feminists felt that it was important that they be valued for what they actually did (eg. housework), whereas later feminists in, say, the 90s may have felt that it was more important for them to see their work as career-women, CEOs, etc. recognised. I imagine that, if feminism means (as I take it to mean) the search for equal opportunities for each gender and lack of discrimination between the genders, then each generation will have different priorities. I just felt that, in the context of this discussion, housework was being presented as something either boring, or only of interest to women.

I’ll put my cards on the table. I was born in 1984 to a SAHM who had earned about the same as (actually, slightly more than) her husband at the time of her first child’s birth, and they were both educated to doctorate level. Throughout my childhood my mum used to be somewhat surprised/ pleased at my apparent enjoyment of housework-y tasks. Yet, in the context of school lessons (eg. Home economics/ textiles versus maths/ latin) she and my dad made it quite clear that the former were less intellectually stimulating than the later and (interestingly) that the latter were therefore more worthwhile.

I found this an upsetting over-compensation that appears frequently in a certain brand of feminism. That is not the brand of feminism to which I subscribe. I am good at, and enjoy, cooking and cleaning. I am good at, and enjoy, literary criticism. I am good at, and enjoy, DIY. I firmly believe that all three should be equally obvious ‘feminist’ pursuits.

(And climbing down off my high horse!)

KM – chickenpox, how horrible! The child I babysat found that a cool/lukewarm bath to lie in helped hugely – but that may depend on the age of your children and the number of the afflicted! Best of luck.

[KM]

Yes. Poor baby. (I misdiagnosed at first, too).
BTW, LazyMummy, I have managed to get my blog working again - at

http://a-way-ahead.blogspot.com

[Lazy Mummy]

Chickenpox? Yuck! You poor thing!

They force vaccinations for that in the US now, which seems like denying children a rite of passage but is undoubtedly easier on the parents. (I won't get into the risks it causes for epidemiology as adults who had the disease & became immune get weakened immunity through less repeat exposure to children w/ it & how that increases risk of far more dodgy shingles).

[Lazy Mummy]

Lucy -

Interesting that you bring up the point that housework/traditional SAHM/W role has been demeaned by feminists when in the very first wave of feminism was trying to get this very work valued appropriately (ie: economically) because it is real work.

You also reminded me of an anecdote. A friend who was one of the first generation of feminists in the 70s used to have a fridge magnet, something like "Tidy house means you don't have enough to do" and an elderly lady (the generation prior to hers) pointed out that to *her* generation, keeping a tidy house *was* work and that the assumption behind the magnet was pretty insulting.

Oh crap. Now I've given more fuel to Bob's fire about the world going to hell in a handbasket since feminism...;)

[KM]

Now you see, on exhausting days like today I start to LONG to be a lazy SAH wife with grown-up kids...

I hate chickenpox.

[Lucy (getting pissed off with the internet)]

- I also should have said, Jean, that it seems to me that some feminists miss a trick when they imply that work around the home is automatically demeaning and boring. It's not, of course, and many of us quite enjoy at least one or other part of it.

[j]

Jean Jones you are right, I pit that very badly.

I do not think that all SAHMs are lazy, and that does include those whose children have left home. I apologize for the fact that I wrote such a lazy post.

What I wanted to say to bob was that his trad view of the world includes at least as many lazy and selfindulgent people as the modern world in which he sees so many people not doing their fair share under a newer social system. I still think that is a fair point to make.

but you are right that it does not apply to all older SATH wives, and I should have drafted that more carefully.

[Lucy (getting pissed off with the internet)]

Yep, that was AnonyMe too.

- Lucy

Jean, I didn't read it as J saying that all stay-at-home wives were like this - just that she knew of some. But I should let her speak for herself.

On a personal note, I am 23 and unemployed, and I work for Oxfam. Many, many volunteers these days are students - and university is another area that has seen drastic changes in numbers since the 70s. So, I'm not sure we should feel guilty on that count. At to care of parents - yes. And it's a hard one. However, I don't think women should have to bear the brunt of caring. My grandmother died of cancer recently and my mother and I split the caring between us (she did the most!) with a very minimal imput from my uncle. The four male grandchildren did pretty much nothing. There were ways in which you could rationalise this gender-split, but really, it was clear part of the underlying cause was differing expectations from workplaces of men and women, and my brothers' and cousins' reluctance (which they later admitted). I would hate to see a situation in which caring for a relative was seen as 'women's work'. However much you love someone, it is gruelling and depressing.

That said, I take your point about it being a couple's choice, and I agree. The crucial point for me is that it should be a free and informed choice. It's not so long ago that men used to say they 'didn't want' their wives to work. It's even less long ago that the term 'house-husband' was coined.

[Jean Jones]

J said "Now when I look around I see a fair number of lazy slobs, but I always did in my 70s childhood, and many of them were women spending their husbands' earnings long after the children were grown up and gone."

It is NOT fair to equate stay-at-home wives, as opposed to mothers, with 'lazy slobs', in the absence of other evidence. Perhaps some women like this ARE lazy, but presumably their staying at home suits both parties in the partnership, or it wouldn't happen. And believe it or not, there are men who like having everything at home done for them so all they have to do is go out to work and come home and put their feet up, and women who like staying at home to do this. If a couple can afford to do this, or are prepared to tailor their wants to what can be earned in this situation, what's it to anyone else? And i believe it's an established fact that charities that rely on volunteers have a much harder time these days with not being able to call on women of this type, who 30 years ago would have been available. Elderly parents needing care, that's another thing. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see that it's anyone else's business if a self-supporting couple agree that one half should stay at home, and that there is not, yet, any law that says that everyone who is not directly responsible for a child MUST be in paid work, if they have some means of support. If working mothers don't like being criticised then perhaps they should extend the same courtesy to older SAH wives.

I think many people would appreciate more flexibility at work, not just women giving birth and breastfeeding, but also men with children and people with elderly parents.

Bob, I expect it's true that a business takes a loss when a female employee has children (although it will depend on how specialised and trained she is - she might be irreplacable, or very hard to replace).

But businesses have adapted greatly to level out traditional male-pattern strengths and weaknesses. I worked in a virtually all-female environment at one point, and the efficiency with which we could all cover each others' tasks was amazing. I have never known such flexible multitasking in any more gender-mixed or male-dominated areas (I'm sorry, but it's true). I think we are so accustomed to the usual way in which businesses operate, that we forget that many of these have already taken into account male patterns of strength and weakness.

My feeling is that many apparently gender-specific skills and tendencies are far more the product of our environment than we realised in the past. As more women have been able to seek jobs traditionally worked by men, more men have come forward to chose jobs once restricted to women. I agree with you strongly than no one should consider themself entitled to 'everything' - but that is a position I should call not feminist, but simply selfish.

[j]

"And why should the employer be increasingly required to change the company’s working practices to accommodate the flexitime so often demanded by women with children. If all these changes actually benefited the company, they would already have been introduced without the need for legislation"

Thats a very interesting question. Having spent 20 years auditing and valuing companies, let me tell you that there is a great deal of confusion on what actually pays its way as an investment and what does not. We do tend to note those inefficiencies which are not normal to us, rather than those that are familiar.

For instance, we recruited a young, high potential person recently, MBA and all, who has resigned just after having completed training and before having contributed the value we are frankly owed in return.

Had this been as a result of pregnancy, I could predict exactly what would be said. In fact, it is a man and he is going cos he feels like developing his career in another country. Same day that happens, a woman on maternity leave brings her baby in, says how bored she is getting, and how she looks forward to coming back.

I know which is my favourite bunny today.

[Mrs L]

Hi Bob - thanks for responding to me.
Businesses do not operate in a vacuum, they rely on the communities around them to provide the future workers, taxpayers and customers they need to continue operating. That is why so many of them operate pretty full-on corporate social responsibility programmes, it is increasingly realised that it is in their interests to do so. And that is why in my opinion they should play their part in supporting women bring up the next generation. Having said that, I actually think we have gone too far with this.
I don't really buy your argument that companies would do this anyway and we wouldn't need legislation if it was in the company's interests. We also have lots of laws governing other aspects of our behaviour - such as not killing other people, not stealing their possessions. These laws are in our interests to ensure society doesn't decend into chaos but we have them in place nonetheless. By your argument, we shouldn't need those laws because they are in our interest.

[Delilah]

I'd just like to point out that the fact that women file more for divorce don't necessarily mean that women are more likely to intitiate separation or even that marriage is on the way out. Women file for divorce more than men because they are more likely to remarry after separation. They are also more likely to need to insulate themselves from their ex-spouse's debts. But I don't think that indicates that they are more likely to have thrown the man out or to have walked out themselves.

Bob, I think you are spot on about the effect of the welfare state on women, at least the way it has been applied in Britain. I see no reason why the benefits aimed at supporting children should automatically be received by women; the effect is to place women in a ghetto of child-friendly working regardless of their qualifications and skills, and to make it unnecessarily hard for women who wish to work full-time with support from a stay-at-home husband. To me, this is quite the reverse of feminism. If women are so much better than men as workers - efficient, flexible, etc - as the apologists for extended maternity leaves etc on this site would claim - why do they need so much more statutory protection than men? If the protections were removed, wouldn't that efficiency, flexibility, etc be enough to keep them employed? No, of course not -because doing a job with on hand tied behind your back is not as efficient as doing it two-handed - which means sorting out your personal life, including children, outside the office. Of course that means finding someone to help you look after those children - paid, or unpaid. True feminists are those who can command support at home through respect; not skivvies who accept state handouts so they can continue to be chief cook and bottle-washer as well as hoping to run Unilever.

[KM]

Oops, sorry should have said pregnant and breastfeeding women.

[Bob Finbow]

Mrs L. Yes, to a limited extent I do think that women should have to accept the limitations of their biology. I do not dispute that there are talented women who should be allowed to compete, if they wish, on equal terms with men. However, they do not want “equal terms”, they want preferential terms – indeed biological differences mean that competing on equal terms is impossible. Why, for instance should women be given paid leave of absence to have children? Why should the law require that the employer, at considerable expense to the company, also keep the job open so she can come back to it, thereby preventing the effective employment of a replacement? And why should the employer be increasingly required to change the company’s working practices to accommodate the flexitime so often demanded by women with children. If all these changes actually benefited the company, they would already have been introduced without the need for legislation. These are things that do not apply to men, precisely because of the biological differences between men and women. If preferentially employing women were considered a benefit by employers, why is there the need for so much legislation to enforce it? By and large businesses are there to make a profit and if sexism operated counter to that, it would rarely occur. Yet, as happened a short while ago, when a successful business man like Alan Sugar (and before you comment on it, I personally can’t stand him) remarks that a woman should have sorted out her child-bearing intentions before applying for a job, he is vilified as a rampant sexist. That’s not sexism – it’s plain common sense business-wise.
Regarding your second point, it’s already been raised that the evidence either way is sketchy. My claim was based on the reported incidence of each sex filing for divorce. I am prepared to acknowledge that there are many ways in which a relationship can be destroyed, and someone walking out is certainly one of them. I would, however, argue the fact that it is predominantly men who do so, is down more to the perceived risk in doing so – on average, men are more prone to risk-taking since biologically they are more dispensable. For men, physical action is the usual course, since that is what their developmental and hormonal processed have prepared them for. There are far more ways than that to destroy a relationship. Like you I do not have the stats to verify my position, since most of what is known comes from investigations that are far from scientifically rigorous. No doubt there’ll be howls of disagreement but from what I understand of female psychology (if a man can really claim such an understanding!), my opinion is that the more passive methods of verbal abuse and “body language” that excludes the other are primarily the domain of women.

[KM]

I think where I end up on this one is that I simply don't recognise the feminism that Bob is talking about. I am a feminist, I believe in equal rights in front of the law, paternity and maternity leave (with special privileges for breastfeeding women) and the right, by all, to flexible work in order to look after their families.
Beyond that I think it is up to individuals how they order their lives and although the study of gender and patriarchy is very important to me I think its significance is often overrated - oh that genuine feminism WAS as powerful as its critics sometimes suggest!

[Mrs L]

Bob - when you say that feminism has driven women to expect certain things, surely you mean it has led women to expect the same opportunities that are open to men. Are you saying that women should just accept the limitations of their biology and accept that they can't have everything open to men? Do you really think that is wise? There are so many talented, brilliant women out there who would not be able to contribute to society in the same way if they did not have these opportunities open to them.

Second - you say that too many women fail to work at their relationships. In my experience, lots of women try desperately hard to keep their relationships, but their husbands are the ones who aren't interested. I think it is generally accepted that men are far more likely to leave their wives for other women, for example, than vice versa. However, I have no stats to prove that.

I am still therefore unsure why you continue to blame women and feminism for the current state of affairs you are unhappy with.

[Lucy]

Yes, please stay (or, drop back again as and when), Bob. I think this discussion has been great! Btw, most of the time it's not this frantic and you can just drop in the occasional comment without inciting the volleys of cross-posting we've all had here.

I too am very sorry to hear about your wife.

J, I didn't know (or hadn't picked up in previous threads) exactly what the situation was with your children - thanks for sharing that.

[j]

sorry, cant type, that blob in the last post says "stick around"

[j]

Ho Bob do stocimaround and come and play on the funnier posts too- whats your view on Caitlin's joky question on the best bit of childhood?

I'm 46 BTW and will tell you (as all regular bloggers here know and you may say something in all innocence and then be embarassed), that I have 3 children, one able, one a bit disabled and one severely disabled to a point where independent life will never be an option.

Also sorry to hear about your loss of your wife.

[KM]

Bob, like you I am not able to respond at length right now. Thank you for a thoughtful post and I do hope you're planning to stick around on Alphamummy a bit - we could really use some thoughtful men to argue with (it would give my husband some peace and quiet too!)

I will come back at you on a couple of points in due course but for now can I recommend you read Sathnam Sanghere's article in the Times today

[[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article4051484.ece]]

which puts the arguments in favour of divorce much more cogently than I can.

[Bob Finbow]

Hi Kieransmum.
Firstly, thank you for your one-line post (15:42:42). It was 11 years ago and, as the platitude goes, “time heals”, but nothing is, or ever will be, exactly the same again. Perhaps that’s what reinforces my strong views on those whom I see as choosing the route of single parenthood.
Regarding your later post, you are right, the crux of the argument is rights v. responsibilities. I do agree that it would be completely wrong to simply force a woman to abort if she has no provider to support her. Nor should she and the child be left to starve if she refuses the abortion. My point is that the emphasis of society now does nothing to dissuade her from becoming pregnant in the first place (or to encourage her to work with her partner to make the relationship work if they already have children). I do not agree that anyone, woman or man, has a “right” to have a child. Many couples who would like a child cannot have one but it does not mean they have some inalienable entitlement to do so. If my points seem directed more at the Welfare State than at Feminism, it is because I see these later developments of the welfare state as being driven by Feminism. I am far from advocating the abandonment by society of those unable to provide for themselves. However, as feminists have demanded (and obtained) ever increasing entitlements for women to be statutorily provided with the means to achieve their personal wishes, the Welfare state has expanded to include countless things that were never contemplated at its inception. As a result it is, quite simply, financially unsustainable but no-one dare say the obvious – that if it is not rectified, it will bankrupt the country.
I don’t dispute your point that contraception is not infallible. However, I would suggest (although no-one can know categorically) that genuine failures of modern contraception (as opposed to misapplication of them) would nowhere near explain the current number of unplanned pregnancies

[Bob Finbow]

Hi All,
I now know exactly why I don’t usually blog! I just can’t keep up with all the posts – at least, I can’t spare the time to answer them all with the fullness they deserve and I’ve never wanted to just make a provocative comment and then walk away. Any that I miss answering are a result of my overlooking them rather than by design. Also, several people have posted more than once since my last post so I may be responding our of sequence
Lucy,
You’re not the only one who has taken me to task over my assertion of a stronger maternal than paternal bond (see Lazy Mummy). I do, however, stand by it as a natural principle (as opposed to what can be manipulated). Certainly there can be occasions where a stronger bond develops with the father than the mother but I feel this is an exception. (an interesting aside (at least I think it’s interesting) is that most Saturdays I spend a bit of time helping to exercise dogs at an animal sanctuary. There they also have a small flock of geese the wander around. Last year a couple of ducks eggs hatched and one of the ducklings “imprinted” on one of the geese. Whilst the other duckling has grown and flown off, the goose-imprinted one refuses to leave and has joint the goose flock, acting to all intents and purposes as if it were a goose. My point is that, although clearly baby animals (and newborn children are just that) can imprint on whoever is nearest, it is not the natural thing to do. In any natural setting, breastfeeding is the only option in reading a child (formula is a relatively recent introduction in human development. And I defy anyone to believe that a woman breastfeeding her child does not develop a stronger bond with the child than the father can even dream of.
Your point about society harnessing men’s drive to compete is, I think, very valid. Society does indeed operate by minor manipulation of natural characteristics. I think though, you have identified what, for me, is one of the fundamental problems with the current experiment in gender equality. Rather than concentrating on the fact that women have just as much intrinsic worth as men and are entitled to just as much respect, the program to enforce equality has instead, stressed women’s right to directly compete with men. As I’m sure we all know, competition usually brings out the worse, rather than the best in us. My view is that this perceived competition between men and women is directly responsible for the increasingly bad treatment (at a personal level) of many women by many men. Whilst I in no way condone it, I am not in the least surprised at the reported increase in crimes of violence perpetrated by men on women. I see it as a natural outcome of this enforced competition between the two. Physical violence against another man is (on average) more likely to result in injury to the initiator than if he directs violence against a women. It’s not nice, but it is perfectly explainable in biological terms.
Regarding your point about the source of my assertion of women being the more usually instigators of breakups, you’ve already done the searches. My point was taken from a discussion where the statistics of those instigating divorce procedures in England and Wales were cited as the source
Lucy, I’m not sure I agree with you that the survival of the nuclear family is predicated on the woman being subservient to the man. I can foresee a situation (as certainly occurred with my own parents and they also did not rigidly follow traditional gender demarcation in the contributions they made (OK, I know that’s anecdotal!!)) where the two can have different functions but neither thinks themselves of more or less value than the other.
Both Lucy and J have sussed me out regarding my primary gripe. It is the benefits and greed culture and the unwarranted sense of entitlement that it has engendered. In my mind the gripe applies equally to men and women but it is my reading of the situation that, just as women have dominated political pressure over the last few decades (and let’s face it, Blair, Brown and Cameron are all pretty much big girls’ blouses :-)), so they bear responsibility for the laws, regulations and codes of practice that have been introduced to promote it. Perhaps I have subconsciously fallen prey to the idea that correlation implies causation (it is not something that I knowingly subscribe to) but to me this rise in “entitlement” and “rights” culture dates to the rise in feminism (with its associated increase in influence of women in government) and its increase follows the same curve.
J, I certainly agree with you that not all youth are lazy slobs and also that boys have no more justification for it than do girls. My point has been to try to explain, rather than justify, behaviours. I also don’t think my contention has been that the problem is limited to youth – I see it as much in the middle-aged and elderly. Perhaps you are right to not have my more pessimistic view of the levels of greed and selfishness in society. But then again, one can only compare with what one has experience of, and my experience over more than 60 years will obviously differ somewhat from your experience over 30(?) years. Perhaps some of the other respondents are right, and I am a dinosaur – but a dinosaur who will continue to stand his ground until the next asteroid hits :-).

[Lazy Mummy]

Bob - agreed about anecdotes and science, but if you re-read what I wrote, I think you'll see that I was actually talking about bonding.

After all, isn't the old Greek concept of love (agape) partly based on the concept of action, sacrifice as part of love, thereby growing bonds of affection. And if looking after a child isn't that, what is it?

(I think there's a misconception that bonding happens in the womb/the instant the child is born. That's why so many new mothers freak out - because they've been told the first few minutes/hours after birth are the most crucial to bonding, whereas in reality, the relationship grows over weeks and months after the child is born, and not just with the mother).

Actually, though, we agree more than we disagree. I wholeheartedly agree that in general, many people now give up on relationships/have over-inflated expectations of love/relationships & don't stick things out the way older generations did.

[Lazy Mummy]

Yes, it sounds wonderfully mysterious. Do tell her I miss her comments!

[KM]

Re: BagofBones - I do know but cannot say online! Now doesn't that sound mysterious....

[Lazy Mummy]

Btw, on a totally unrelated subject, what happened to Bagofbones? Does anyone know if she'll come back to AM or did the CoC issue drive her away?

[Lazy Mummy]

Well put, J. I wholeheartedly agree (similar marital share of responsibilities/earnings too).

[Lucy]

I'm kinda with Bob on the benefits culture - drives me nuts, and it is on the up, and I think it's even worse than 'greed is good'. I'm unemployed and don't get benefit despite doing job interviews most week or so, because I have savings which will pay for me to go back to university next year. I don't see why others should have the luxury of turning down jobs they just don't fancy, and still claiming benefits. Much, much worse than what Spelman did.

But I will try to shut up now. I just wanted to show Bob we don't disagree about everything.

[j]

Bob hi and I agree it is good to debate with you.

What comes across from your posts is a sense that you feel that people today are somehow a disappointment, more lazy, more seflish than before, and you are doing your best to understand why that is so. Parts of your post in particular show that- "The upshot of all these changes is that today's women feel that if anything in their life is not perfect they are entitled to have it changed to the way they want it. The knock-on effect is that many young men, feeling hard done by in this post feminism world, are saying to themselves “well, if there’s nothing in it for me, why should I bother”"

Now if that were really true, I would share your disappointment, though perhaps not your analysis. But lets offer another perspective.

I am educated and have moved on from my time as a fulltime mother to sharing the load on earning as well as housework and childcare- I work fulltime and earn the same as my OH. That means he is not under the pressure to earn every penny himself. I do many trad male things such as car maintenance, tax, bills, etc and he cooks as he is greedier than I am so that way he gets more food. I dont think he sees this as feminist selfishness, what he sees is a strong partner who does her fair share.

Now when I look around I see a fair number of lazy slobs, but I always did in my 70s childhood, and many of them were women spending their husbands' earnings long after the children were grown up and gone. And there are also lots of male slobs. I dont buy your analysis that somehow the women are driving slobdom with their evil feminist wishes and the poor guys are just lulled into slobdom by a sense of having lost all their traditional perks. Come on, either we have sympathy for all lazy young bums or we accept that the boys have no more excuses than the girls on this one.

I also see lots of young people who are strong and brave and decent, looking forward to a life doing their best. And some of the other slobs will grow out of it, we hope.

I'm not sure, to be honest, that I can really identify with the picture of widespread selfishness that you are painting.

I am more depressed by the greed is good culture than by the benefits culture, to the extent it exists. (and by benefits culture I mean those who dont need the support but cant be bothered, not those who deserve short term or long term support).

[Lucy]

Oh, and what I meant to point out as well is that many, many children are not born to married couples, and it is much harder to find statistics for which parents in these couples initiates the breakdown of the relationship. However, (yes, Bob, anecdotally) my money would be on the men.

[Lucy]

Lies, damn lies and statistics time. I did some trawling of the internet and found various sites of interest. Sorry - I've just set these out as I found them, but they are worth seeing.

From this site: http://www.homedad.org.uk/numbers.html

* No-one has officially recorded the number of stay-at-home dads (as separate from non-working male students, disabled/ ill men, and childless house-husbands.
*However, in 2001 an estimated 5% cite looking after family or home as their reason for not working. Of these, 3 in 5 say they do so out of choice.

From this site: http://www.raisingkids.co.uk/todaysnews08/news_130508_01.asp

* In 2008, an estimated 24% of women are stay at home mums
* The number of stay at home dads has risen by 58% since 1993, but is still under 200, 000.
* Only 7% of parents with young children stay home to look after them (I assume this means young children as opposed to infants).

From this site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6542031.stm

* Nearly a quarter of children lived with only one parent last year and nine out of 10 of those households were headed by lone mothers.
* One in seven children live in households where no parent is working.
* Therefore, in the majority of single-parent families the parent in question is employed.

This site is, I think, far the most interesting and serious: http://www.abs.aston.ac.uk/newweb/research/publications/docs/RP0415.pdf

* Numbers of women initiating divorce increased steadily between 1949 and 1970 (apparently in response to new divorce and family laws). The increase continued from 1971-1997, but more slowly.
* The study on the site suggests (rather uncertainly) that the prospect of child support or of keeping the marital home does not lead to an increase in women initiating divorce.
*The introduction of the 'no-fault' divorce corresponds with a large increase in women initiating divorce, which is not explained by coincident economic changes.
*Increase in women's economic independence is matched by increase in numbers of divorces.
* HOWEVER, increase in the single person's welfare benefit has only a slight positive effect on divorce.

[Kieransmum]

I think probably where I differ from you, Bob, is fundamentally on the question of rights v. responsibilities. Let's take your example of a woman getting pregnant accidentally.
There is the right to have an abortion, balanced against a sense of responsibility to an unborn child. Your argument seems to imply that women who get pregnant in less than ideal circumstances should simply ignore their sense of maternal responsibility and dispose of the foetus. Then, there is the "right" of that woman to have that child, and the responsibility of society to care for all children, even those who are born to feckless/undeserving/cruel/criminal parents. Those responsibilities are a good thing, in my book - the responsible decision to bear a child, the responsible decision made by society as a whole that no child should have to suffer starvation because of the absence of a male breadwinner.
I think the points you are making about the development of social support for single mothers are much less about feminism than about the development of a welfare state. Similarly, the high incidence of breakup of marriages - which I definitely DON'T see as a good thing and definitely agree with you is often a decision taken far too hastily - is much more to do with the social welfare net which exists, which means that men and women can be provided for without the existence of a family breadwinner.
My question to you is, would you prefer it if young children of single mothers or hasty divorcees were left to starve by the State?

One other point - I do quibble with your reasoning that it is very rare to have an unplanned pregnancy when having sex with contraception - it's happened to two of my three closest friends. Contraception is there for a reason, but it's not perfect. That's life.

[Bob Finbow]

To all of you ladies who have been responding to my posts, thanks and accept my apolgies that I am a rather erratic poster. I have periods when I cannpt spare any timne then a few hours (like this evening) when I can and will. I need something to eat now so this is a quick one.
Lazy Mummy,
taking your points
1) I think we will have to differ here. Whereas I , indeed, cannot point to much specific, controlled empirical data to support my point, neither I think can you to support yours. Anecdotal information is rarely scientifically valid. Your accusation of my view stemming from prejudice, can be just as easily levelled at you position. And I don't think you'll find I said that men and women care for their children to a greater or lesser extent. I spoke of the bond between the two. However, I am as unlikely to convince you on that issue as you are to convince me.
2) Should the NHS care for me? Well, as I've spent over 40 working years funding the NHS, then probably "YES"
3) Things aren't as clearcut as I'm trying to make out. Well, that is obviously true, but, as I think I've said elsewhere, society functions on the basis of average situations. As such, I think the position I've taken is justified. we can all point to anecdotes that contradict any given point of view. Remember, the current experiment in social engineering is still very much "work in hand" and the outcome is far from certain. Measured by social stability, I'd say it's pretty much failing :-)

[Lucy]

Hi Bob. Thanks for clearing that up - men who walk out certainly share the blame!

I suspect, as someone else has said earlier, that your definition of feminism differs from mine. I wasn't yet born in the seventies, and the idea of feminism that I grew up with was not that women could, or should, think that they deserved to 'have it all', but that men and women were equal despite their differences, and that therefore no one should be discriminated against on basis of their gender. A male nurse, or a female surgeon, should not be ridiculed.

I am aware that, from a female point of view, I have been fortunate to live when and where I do. I suspect that some of the earlier feminist statements were perhaps cruder than I would like to put my name behind now (certainly, I dislike the idea that women are somehow better than men, or than men 'owe' women something), but that's a luxury I have in 2008, when I can read, vote, train alongside men, etc., etc. I can see that, if women are seen as inferior or subordinate to men, or more limited than men in the range of what they are entitled to do, nuclear families might well survive better - but I think that is an unacceptable trade-off.

On a personal note, I didn't actually use the phrase 'more suited' to describe my partner's contribution to work around the home. As it happens, I do the cooking, cleaning, ironing and so on (trad. 'female' jobs), but I also do the accounts, do minor service on the car (I'm not a mechanic but I can do your basic tyres/oil/brakelights stuff, and he doesn't like doing it), sort out furniture (I do DIY for my parents and would do here if it weren't rented accomodation), drive long distance, map-read (he can't), etc. etc. He does his work in an office for money, and he also empties the bins (because he's up at 6.30 to put them out in time, and I'm not), and cleans the loo. He also, because he is fussier than I am, occasionally dusts down my computer when its works are choking.
So ... the point is, my work is largely the unpaid stuff necessary to us living our lives and it doesn't begin and end with trad. female roles.

[Bob Finbow]

Hi Lucy,
Please don’t get me wrong, I am not blaming the women entirely for the situation. A man walking out on his family and responsibilities is utterly unacceptable. It does however, I’m sure, sound as if I’m blaming women mainly because I feel it is women (or more precisely, Feminism) that has driven the social change that has resulted in these patterns of behaviour. It is an (I think) undeniable fact that a few generations ago the current scale of broken families would not have been believed. Nor do I believe that every wife in those days suffered regular abuse because she would not or could not leave. What I do feel is that in those times both men and women had a far better grasp of the fact that relationships can take a lot of hard work and require compromise and sacrifice but that the end result ( a family in which to bring up the children) made it a price well worth paying. True, women had a physically much harder life than they do now. But then, so did men, who’s lifetime of hard work to fund the family was responsible for their life expectancy being anything up to 5 or 6 years less than their wives’. What changed in the ’60s & ‘70s was the acceptance of the necessary sacrifice by both parties for the end result. Being told “you can have it all – the good life, the child and the high powered career” is no doubt very seductive but it is not based on reality. However, it has become politically unacceptable to say so. If a woman wants it, why should she be denied it?
But someone has to fund it. All the recently installed laws smoothing the way for this “have it all” world have a significant cost to be paid by someone else, usually the employer. I do not have the facts to determine if employers genuinely believe that it is worth their while to employ women, but I do know they dare not deny it and to try to act on such without such a premise guarantees being prosecuted and fined for sexism. The upshot of all these changes is that today's women feel that if anything in their life is not perfect they are entitled to have it changed to the way they want it. The knock-on effect is that many young men, feeling hard done by in this post feminism world, are saying to themselves “well, if there’s nothing in it for me, why should I bother”
The result is the world we see today – and I do not consider it an improvement on what has gone before.
Your point about the amount of work you do in the home and what it would cost to “employ you” to do it is fairly traditional and you do concede that he also does jobs that he is generally more suited to but that (in essence) you do more than he does. I would make the point that you are looking at this from a woman’s point of view. It is, I think, a fairly certain fact, that men and women have a very different view of what constitutes “Necessary housework”. I certainly recall my wife, on occasions, scrapping round to make everywhere tidy if someone was coming round, whereas my view was always “hey, it’s our house. If they don’t like it, tough!” Mind you, I fully agree though that he (indeed both of you) should always make a point of being appreciative of what the other does. It costs you little but makes a lot of difference if you say “thanks” for making the effort.
Like you. Lucy, I should put a declaimed about my use os sweeping generalisations but populations and societies function on the basis of averages, so we are probably (in both our cases) justified in using these generalisations as arguiong points

[M]

Well, Bob, full marks for coming back! Yes, I would have added that many of the things we pay for but do not use are not necessarily things those who do set out to, but it was a long post already.
J is right, that most here are hard-working and, as I pointed out on another thread, there is a sense of community.
I don't think for one moment that you should be made to redress the imbalance created by nature, but I do get cross when people tend to lump all single women/mothers with "cynical Spongers", as J puts it so well. I am also widowed and it happens to me all the time! I agree with you, though, about the MPs and expenses and alas, I feel Supermother is right when she says there is little to choose between the parties on taxation. Anyhow, maybe you'll join us on a happier post for a joke or two.

[Lucy]

Sorry Bob, I think we cross-posted there! Could you cite the statistics that show that more women instigate breakups than men? That sounds interesting. How did the survay work? I would point out here that, sadly, many cases of domestic violence (physical and mental) towards women begin during pregnancy. In that case, the woman may well be the instigator of the breakup - but I do hope those situations are discounted!

Also, plenty of dads these days do stay and bring up babies singly, particularly (to my knowledge) in cases where the child has bonded more strongly with dad, where dad doesn't approve of mum's new partner, and where mum has had (yep, it's a horrible situation and not easy for either of them) very bad post-natal depression.

[Lucy]

Bob, I'm finding this an interestind and serious discussion, too. Please keep posting.

I'm not clear why it is single mothers who are the focus of your argument. Surely, it is often the case that a couple choose to have a child, and subsequent to that decision, split up? I cannot believe (and I'm sure you're not suggesting) that these separations are always the woman's fault.

I believe that your argument that women have a natural maternal bond is open to some criticism. You suggest that this bond is a natural inevitability, a mixed blessing/hazard we must simply accept, along with its consequences. But, I might observe that men exhibit a strong drive to compete as providers, often providing more than a single woman and her children need. Perhaps taxes are the modern world's way of harnessing this natural masculine impulse, this male work ethic, to provide for the weaker and less successful members of the community as they mature? I think this is tenuous, but just as valid as your description of materal bonds. What do you think?

[Bob Finbow]

Hi J
If I can try to clarify my point regarding choice, what I was trying to put across was that, whilst the resultant pregnancy and child may not present them with much of a choice, they could always choose not to have the unsafe sex that resulted in the child being born or, if in a relationship, they could choose not to abandon it at the smallest provocation. I realise that the man bears just as much responsibility for unsafe sex as does the woman but, since in almost all cases it is the woman who pays the greater price, it is (no doubt unfairly) a greater problem for the woman. The man is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. If he offers to marry the girl in question, the cry goes up ”why should she have to marry him for a mistake”. If he doesn’t offer then he’s an irresponsible runaway dad. The option most often touted is that he should support the woman and child but, if he is excluded from forming a family with them, what does he get out of it? Suggest he should raise the child and he’d be laughed out of court.
I am also fully aware that there may be times when a relationship is beyond salvage but my strong impression is that far too many people expect perfection and just throw in the towel if everything’s not perfect. That may be acceptable when there is just the two people but, once they have chosen to have a child, that child’s needs should come first. If they were not prepared to make those sacrifices, they should have discussed the matter and not had the child in the first place. Statistics suggest that far more women than men instigate these breakups but my view applies equally to both sexes.
By the way. I could’t agree more with you about MPs being a bigger problem than single mothers. At least single mothers (hopefully) produce something worthwhile at the end. You’re also right about elections being a blunt instrument. I’ve always felt that at every election, as well as the candidate’s name there should be a whole list of the policies the party will follow if elected. Each voter could, as well as voting for a person, also tick off all the policies they want pursued. The collated results of this should be binding on the majority party once in power. That way government might actually reflect the wishes of the people who elected it!

[Lazy Mummy]

Gosh Bob, where to begin?

1) "It is a simple fact that women are the ones who give birth and, as a result, form a closer bond with their offspring than do fathers (even good fathers)>"

Really? I think you're largely showing the prejudices of your generation there. People my age (30-odd years younger than you) generally share childcare responsibilities equally. My husband and many of our male friends & colleagues would roll their eyes at your outdated and rather sad belief that mothers bond more than fathers. Not in the generation where men and women share childcare responsibilities equally from birth.

(And no, obviously not all of us do -some have stay at home fathers or mothers while the other parent works - but many do, and actually I know at least as many SAHDs as SAHMs in my close circle. More in fact).

2) So, no one should subsidise anyone else in any way whatsoever. You're how old? 60? Should we be paying for your NHS treatment then? Did you benefit from grammar school education as a boy in the 50s & 60s? If so, was it fair that the taxpayers subsidised your education there if your parents couldn't afford to pay for private education?

I'm not hugely in favour of encouraging "isms" either, but I don't think the issues are as clear-cut as you're trying to make them out to be.

On the original point, I agree with JH. The woman MP did something unethical but on a scale of unethical it was way less harmful than many other MP scams and not worth getting riled up about. Better childcare provisions for all - now that's something worth getting riled up about.

[Lazy Mummy]

"Some people male and female always are unhappy. Others (usually alpha people) don't."

Eh? Both ungrammatical (no doubt a typo) and probably unscientific. I've known lots of alpha people who've suffered from depression, sorrow, sadness.

As to your earlier issue about alpha people not thinking 65k a year is worth getting out of bed for, LOL. But, are we only defining alpha in terms of income here? What about leadership? I thought that was a key component of alpha-ness.

[Bob Finbow]

Hi M :-),
Taking up your points about all the things we don’t expect to personally make use of but as a society we continue to fund, my main response would be that the things you quote are all very actively discouraged and those involved are strenuously pressed to change (and even then I still don't see that I should subsidise other people’s addictions)
Single parenthood, almost uniquely, seems to be positively encouraged. People are not given special tax allowances and benefits in order to finance a drug habit.
I think you are right in your suggestion of why people who might be considered “moderates” are increasingly critical of those they see as benefiting at their expense. Eventually people get fed up of being taken advantage of. I know I fall into that bracket.
I am aware of how far the discussion has drifted from the original point about this misuse of public funds. Believe me, I would be just as strongly against it if it were a man in the firing line. However, rightly or wrongly, this story is about misuse of funds to pay a nanny. What drew me to this strand (I don’t usually blog and my link to it came from one of the main stories in the newspapers headlines) was, on reading the first few posts, the impression came across that it was intolerable that this woman shouldn’t be reimbursed for payments to her nanny. Why? This bland assumption of entitlement was what drew my response and it seems to me to be symptomatic of the way society has drifted in its attempts to “empower” women. I cannot quarrel with your assertion that women come of worse (career-wise) than men a result of having children. However, I equally cannot accept responsibility for the disadvantage nature has landed women with. It is a simple fact that women are the ones who give birth and, as a result, form a closer bond with their offspring than do fathers (even good fathers)> I’m told that this special bond usually gives great pleasure to mothers. But everything in life comes at a price and for mothers (at least in my opinion) that price is a greater tendency to have their lives dominated by the children. My question therefore is “why should the approximately 50% of the population who are men, subsidise this special bond between mother and child. The job of providing that subsidy should fall on the husband (or partner). I personally do not care if the couple decide the woman should work and the man should stay at home. That is their business. But I equally do not feel it should fall to me and other taxpayers just so that one or both can have their cake and eat it.
Oh, and I can do jokes occationaly - I'm just having a job finding something suitable in what is, for me, a very serious blog

[supermother]

Some people male and female always are unhappy. Others (usually alpha people) don't.

"Supermother said
"I want a flat tax of about 20% or less for all and no tax allowances or claims plus a statutory income for everyone over 18 of £200 a week and no benefits or pensions and big cut backs in what the state provides."

---------------------

I agree 100%: Non-means tested Citizen's Income and flat rate tax.

I'd be prepared to pay more than 20% for all the great benefits it would bring in terms of choice, freedom and incentives (and getting rid of all the special-interest pleading groups).

I wonder how much it would cost.

Posted by: Arneson Stidgeley"

No party will go for this. There is so little to choose between labour and the tories on tax.

[Kieransmum]

Sorry to hear about your wife Bob.

[Bob Finbow]

Barbara,

You are right to take me to task for omitting to state the one (the only) exception I make to the subsidy issue. Absolutely, those who are widowed should have everyone's full support. My wife also died of cancer whilst our children were still underage but they at least were in their teens (although my wife's 7 year decline before she died meant they had to watch it whilst still barely into double figured age). Please rest assured I'm certain everyone would wish to support you in your situation. My darts are aimed at those whose single parenthood or need for childcare benefits is of their own choosing or making.

[j]

Though agree with Bob and also with M that we all fund things we dont use. I suspect we'd all like to nominate a couple of things that our hard-earned cash shouldnt go on. The only chance we get to express that view is an election every so often, which is a pretty blunt instrument.

Be reassured Bob, these are hard working souls here on Alphamummy; nobody likes a cynical sponger. I guess we feel that there are sections of the popultion where cynical spongers are more prevalent than in the single mother group- we have certain MPs in mind and I bet we could think of others.

[j]

Hello Bobn

when you do write back, could you clarify how the following point you've made would apply only, or even mainly, to the female involved?

"I suggest, the choice lay in having decided to (a) have unsafe sex or (b) not be prepared to accept that a partnership involves concessions on both sides."

[Lucy]

Hi Bob - it's really good to have someone new who comes back and discusses things! My perhaps rather obvious first reaction is that, while some women do have children as the result of casual sex, or in the knowledge that the biological father wants no part in raising that child, many more find that their male partners bail out at a later date. It's tough to know who should subsidise them, but blaming the women exclusively (as people tend to) is, in my view, wrong.

The second thing that occurs to me is that, in my (very much personal, anecdotal, non-scientific) experience, quite a few men of my generation (twenties) think, or claim, that they are the ones who pay taxes and the ones who 'pay the bills', when they really don't. I actually had to sit down with my partner and go over bank statements before he realised that, actually, food shopping is a pretty big part of our expenditure, and it all comes off my barclaycard. Similarly, I am sure he does not realise that if he paid me minimum wage by the hour for cooking, cleaning, washing and ironing, I would be earning comfortably more than he does. This would remain true if I paid him for things he does around the house, in case you're wondering! I am not complaining. Since I'm studying, the situation works for us, but I do like him to be aware of it. I bring this up because I think some men don't realise how much they rely on their partners for free help around the home, and how much, in fact, being part of a heterosexual couple is financially beneficial to them.

DISCLAIMER: I am aware this is a big, wide, sweeping generalisation. I do not mean to imply that all relationships work like this, or that either partner in those relationships that do work like this, is being exploited. (Er, so don't yell at me, please?)

[barbara]

To Bob Finbow,
I was left with 2 very much wanted children when my husband died of cancer.
Aged 1 and 6
I totaly object to your post and as someone born in only 1 year later than me you should know better!!!!!!!!
Shame on you.

[Kieransmum]

Ah, OK, thanks, that makes it clear. I don't think I am a professional victim in the sense you describe it, but I am certinly a feminist, so I don't object to the terminology since I'm happy to cry sexism if I think that is the case (not that I think I did, just commented on a particular trend of abusive male posters). So no need to apologise, you haven't been unreasonable. As regards your other points, I won't come back at you now until you've had a chance to write all you want to.
I suspect that probably we'll find that we have an instinctive difference about the benefits and costs of feminism - or even, what it is.

[Arneson Stidgeley]

Supermother said

"I want a flat tax of about 20% or less for all and no tax allowances or claims plus a statutory income for everyone over 18 of £200 a week and no benefits or pensions and big cut backs in what the state provides."

---------------------

I agree 100%: Non-means tested Citizen's Income and flat rate tax.

I'd be prepared to pay more than 20% for all the great benefits it would bring in terms of choice, freedom and incentives (and getting rid of all the special-interest pleading groups).

I wonder how much it would cost.

[Bob Finbow]

Hi Keiransmum. Just touching base. Since I'm at work I can't respond instantly but rest assured I will be responding to each of your points but I may have to pick up on some of them after work tonight.
My term “professional victim” is what term those whose first response to criticism is to assume they are the victim of one of today’s endless “isms”. It happens lots of times nowadays and such avoidance of arguing the facts to me smacks of feeling victimized. I apologise if this does not apply to you (as your answering my comments does indeed suggest)
My phrase “distaff vultures” is aimed at those who hang around expecting someone else’s effeorts to provide a meal (a la vulture species). You may say that many single mothers are not so by choice, and that is certainly true in some cases, but, I suggest, the choice lay in having decided to (a) have unsafe sex or (b) not be prepared to accept that a partnership involves concessions on both sides. My view is that women since the ’70 have been fed such a diet of belief in the “I can have it all” society, that they have lost sight of the fact that maintaining a relationship and raising your children calls for some sacrifices. You’re quite right, it does depend on what you think of as an unendurable marriage. My thesis is that most women nowadays think anything other than having exactly what they want is unendurable. As far as the accidental side is concerned, I was 13 in 1960 and so the introduction or (almost) foolproof contraception is not something I am unaware of. With the rare exception of a malfunction in contraception, there has been no excuse for an “accidental” pregnancy since then. It did reduce the incentive to say “no” but the number of accidental pregnancies claimed now suggests total carelessness or utter stupidity – neither of which I feel I should subsidise. Women making more realistic in expectations and making an effort to “tough out” the hard times, and errant husbands being effectively required to bear their family’s financial burdens would be a great benefit.
Finally, your last small post. It's the assumed expectation of a special benefit per se that I object to, irrespective of whether the person is working or not. What else would you call a nanny subsidised by the taxpayer(which is what started this debate) than a benefit to get someone else to do what, in a natural setting, she would do herself. This assumption of a right to such benefits is symptomatic of the culture under which the number of single mothers has burgeoned?

[Bob Finbow]

Sorry, they seem to have posted my earlier comment again and failed to post my latest one (pity it was a long one and I haven't time to do it agin just now. I'll have to wait until tonight

Mrs Knievel | 11 Jun 2008 10:42:42 - "Why are men posting on this blog". Well, perhaps it's because it's (predominently) men who have to fund this. I do not have the precise data to make a definite claim, but I'm pretty sure that, overall, men pay more tax and receive less benefits that women. Yet it's women's pressure groups wh