Sometimes it seems the following must be invoked whenever a feminist brings up the subject of childcare as a burden: “Lots of men who work long hours in high-stress jobs would give anything to spend more time with their children.” It’s supposed to prove that, far from being a burden, childcare is a privilege that women disproportionately enjoy and that, by implication, any feminists who complain are miserable, child-hating whingers.
It’s a red herring. I have every sympathy for the hard-working men – I’ve worked some terrible jobs myself to try to keep the credit card companies off my back – but their plight isn’t directly relevant to the question of whether childcare is or is not a burden. (Whether it’s indirectly relevant is a much larger question, far beyond the scope of this post.) There’s a huge difference between “spending time with” children and “looking after” them.
My dad spends time with my daughter. He sings to her, talks to her, encourages her to smile and clap her hands. And he can do all these things safe in the knowledge that if she fills her nappy or starts crying uncontrollably, or if he just wants to get on with something else now, he can hand her back to me and I’ll take over. Because I’m the one that looks after her.
I love my daughter, but I also know that there are very few high-stress jobs that can compare to the task of looking after her. In a job, you clock off at the end of the day and your time is your own. Parenting means being constantly on duty: even when the baby is asleep, you have to be alert for the moment when she wakes up and needs attention. If you have the financial resources, you can subcontract some of the work to a childminder, but even then you have to be alert for the call that says there is a crisis only you can resolve.
Looking after a baby is exhausting. Normal tasks like showering and preparing breakfast require careful planning so that the baby doesn’t get frustrated with boredom and start crying. Something as simple as reading the paper or writing an essay requires co-operation from someone else, otherwise the baby cries from lack of attention. Trying to cram everything you didn’t get done during the day into the evenings when the baby’s asleep means you don’t get enough sleep, which makes it even harder to cope with what can often feel like never-ending demands.
This is a partial explanation for why I haven’t posted anything recently.
Pingback: The Uncommon Man
Pingback: Shiny Ideas
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: FeministBlogosphere
Don’t fret too much, Nick, it gets better, and the best thing you can do is to savor the “baby days” because you won’t believe how fast they go by.
The burden remains, well after you can take showers without close planning.
My husband does things with the kids, and even shoulders some of the crisis care burden so that I can go to work — at least he does when his work has flex in it. Whether mine has flex in it is always a secondary question.
I love my girls. And when I get to DO things with them, they’re a joy beyond comprehension.
But, as you said, there is a huge difference between “doing with” and taking care of. And who ever is the primary care-taker pretty much has to put the rest of the world on hold when the kids really need something. To deny that this is a burden is unrealisitc. It may be a joyful burden, but it IS a burden none-the-less.
Is there a solution?
if only this were true. that really should be changed to “in some jobs…”, or perhaps “in most jobs…”. in my old job, i used to get calls late into the night, some in the middle of the night. as far as i was concerned, my time was never my own.
that said, i totally agree with the difference between “spending time with” and “looking after” children. and having done my share of spending time with, looking after, and working a job that had no time clock, the most difficult of the three was looking after my son. of course, it was also the most rewarding.
I can recall my first husband frequently saying, “thank goodness it’s almost Monday so I can go to work and rest”–even though he wasn’t expected to do household chores or errands while supervising children.
It’s good to “see” you again. Hope things aren’t too overwhelming on your end. I remember taking a prenatal class in which the teacher said that we should be prepared to have 10 minutes a day for cooking and cleaning once the critter was born. She was an optimist.
Nick, I don’t really have anything to say, but I wanted to echo Dianne and say how nice it is to see your name appear on “Alas” again!
Although I knew it in theory, living with Sydney and Maddox has really make me appreciate how awe-inspiring the 24/7 coverage needed to grow an infant is. And they have two parents plus a few aunts and uncles to help! This is no help, but for what it’s worth, I think what you’re doing is amazing.
Thanks Dianne and Amp. I’m hoping to find time for a few more posts, but… you know, the best laid plans and all that.
I said: In a job, you clock off at the end of the day and your time is your own.
nexyjo said: if only this were true. that really should be changed to “in some jobs…”, or perhaps “in most jobs…”. in my old job, i used to get calls late into the night, some in the middle of the night. as far as i was concerned, my time was never my own.
I expressed it loosely. Fair point.
It’s funny how 24/7 support (especially in IT) gets to feel a lot like taking care of a baby. I’ve done both, (simultaneously). But at least in IT you don’t get vomited on nearly as often. And changing a baby is usually simpler than rebuilding a dead Exchange server.
Hang in there, Nick… it does get a little easier as time goes on.
My problem with
“Lots of men who work long hours in high-stress jobs would give anything to spend more time with their children”
is that they’d give up anything but, apparently, the high-stress job. ‘Cause a man’s job is way too important for him to give it up for anything dippy like child-minding.
Ledasmom, the problem is, those high-stress jobs are often the only thing keeping a roof over our kids heads, shoes on their feet and food on the table. Women don’t have the earning power that men do. That’s a whole OTHER can of worms, but it’s often why men don’t feel they can just up and walk out of the job to greener pastures.
As a single person, you hate your job and walk out or look for something else, and it falls through or things are tough, well, that’s just you eating kraft dinner and sleeping on a friends couch because you can’t pay your rent.
You put kids in the picture and suddenly it’s not good enough to CHOOSE to do that… I mean hell, sometimes things go badly and you end up on the nubs and the whole family suffers, despite your best efforts. But when we look at choosing (as a family member) to take an action that increases your probability of not being able to pay your rent/mortgate, that, in my mind, is irresponsible at best.
Wookie: “Ledasmom, the problem is, those high-stress jobs are often the only thing keeping a roof over our kids heads, shoes on their feet and food on the table. Women don’t have the earning power that men do. That’s a whole OTHER can of worms, but it’s often why men don’t feel they can just up and walk out of the job to greener pastures.”
Well, exactly. If those men *were* doing the childcare they wouldn’t be in those high-stress high-pay jobs. Because women *generally* do the childcare they don’t get those high-stress high-pay jobs. Chickens & eggs. And it’s impossible to change this because it would be irresponsible to not give your family *as much money as is humanly possible regardless of the consequences.*
I’m sorry. It is, I am sure, why some men *think* they don’t do primary childcare or even a biggish portion of secondary childcare. I doubt it myself.
Meanwhile, “I childproofed my house. But they still get in!”
Oy, Nick. I’m just glad to have you checking in once in awhile.
Yeah, Ledasmom. I was able to bail out of a hateful job and spend some time at home because of my husband’s generosity. But with a kid or two, his generosity wouldn’t have mattered, because it wouldn’t have been enough to cover even a temporary breather. I would be eating my heart out in that fucking hellhole until retirement or until they fired me, whichever came first. >:
It’s just cemented my belief that not having kids was the correct thing for me to do, which is value of a sort as the big 4-0 looms and I brace for yet another round of “You don’t have a BABY yet ? What’s WRONG with you ?!”
Oy, Nick. I’m just glad to have you checking in once in awhile.
Yeah, Ledasmom. I was able to bail out of a hateful job and spend some time at home because of my husband’s generosity. But with a kid or two, his generosity wouldn’t have mattered, because it wouldn’t have been enough to cover even a temporary breather. I would be eating my heart out in that fucking hellhole until retirement or until they fired me, whichever came first. >:
It’s just cemented my belief that not having kids was the correct thing for me to do, which is value of a sort as the big 4-0 looms and I brace for yet another round of “You don’t have a BABY yet ? What’s WRONG with you ?!”
One thing I find encouraging though is that some men are starting to actually give up the high-stress jobs in order to spend more time with their children. Some of them have even become the primary caregivers of their children or at least some of the men I know have.
On the other hand, babies are a lot cuter than computers.
Speaking of which, Nick, have you had time during all this to take any pictures? (/blatant attempt to get an extra baby blobbing episode)
One thing I find encouraging though is that some men are starting to actually give up the high-stress jobs in order to spend more time with their children.
I traded one high stress job (computer software) for another high stress job (entrepreneur), largely so I could give my kids the time, attention and structure they needed. But secretly, I wanted to do that anyway. The kids provide the excuse needed to keep the wife off my back, frankly. (“I want security!” “OK, honey. I’ll go back to Microsoft. Now, I’ll be working 60+ hours a week and taking a lot of trips. That means that it’ll be you doing the homeschooling and the meal prep and putting them to bed every night, and of course, going solo for a five to ten days each month.” “Um, never mind. So how’s the entrepeneur thing coming?”)
Whatever my original motives, however, working at home and being the primary caregiver for our youngest (the older two are now living in another home) has been basically a joy. (It wasn’t a joy when the older two were here.) So there’s a LOT of individual variation; I’d be hating life under one work + caregiving scenario, and loving it under the same scenario but with different kids. YMMV, in other words.
Ledasmom, the problem is, those high-stress jobs are often the only thing keeping a roof over our kids heads, shoes on their feet and food on the table. Women don’t have the earning power that men do. That’s a whole OTHER can of worms, but it’s often why men don’t feel they can just up and walk out of the job to greener pastures.
Copout. My (male) boss demands work flexibility for his children. If a whole generation of male employees did that, what could the employers do about it? But sure, rebuilding the exchange server is a bit more glam to talk about. Think some women wouldn’t rather have a turn doing that?
If a whole generation of male employees did that, what could the employers do about it?
Hire women.
The people, united, provide a bigger target.
I remember taking care of an infant, and I never beleived it when people said it would get easier. But it did, really fast.
Now I have a 7 year old who checks in once in a while between playing with the neighbor children and is perfectly content to be away from my supervision, as long as I manage her life to her specifications. I suppose if you have many children the moments when you despair last for more years. But thank Margaret Sanger I have one child and raising her has been a blast- plus she saved me from a cubicle job when she was a baby, because I couldn’t bear to be away from her for ten hours a day.
If a whole generation of male employees did that, what could the employers do about it?
Unfortunately, they aren’t hiring women. The trend in IT is overseas oursourcing. Can’t get your brains cheap enough at home? Get ’em in India.
It’s not a cop out when it’s your reality. It’s like abortion … a lot easier to point fingers and admonish and demand the theoretically better choices when it isn’t personal.
I think my point was simply that the wage gap does exacerbate the problem of men versus women leaving work to take on the role of primary caregiver for however long they do it for… and that it’s not trivial when it’s your mortgage or your health insurance on the line. Amp actually did a fabulous cartoon on this, but I can’t find it in the archives :-(
Wookie, is this the cartoon you mean?
Yes, thank you!