Parenting, work and gender - who takes the day off?

I'm reading a book about how men and women think differently, speak differently, interpret differently and how that impacts on work. The book was lent to me by a friend who got a lot out of it, and thought I might be interested in it too.

There's a lot of really interesting things - a lot of stuff which I think is spot on - but one thing keeps coming up in the real life interviews, case studies etc which is just Peeving. Me. Right. Off.

And I wonder whether that's mostly because I'm in the minority situation, where I am the breadwinner, and my DH is the breadmaker. In that I am out of the house for 12-20 hours a day working, and DH is with our DSs 12-24 hours of the day.

DH is a SAHD pure and simple and wonderful. He isn't like one of the SAHDs we see, where he just sorts them out, and then goes and works part time/ works from home/ runs another company/ blogs/ plays internet poker/ delivers circulars or anything - he is a hard working full time child rearing parent, who does the lion's share of the cooking cleaning shopping and laundry, and studies part time for personal enjoyment (which thoroughly support). In the same way that a lot of mothers are a SAHM pure and simple - they look after the kids and run the household. When the boys are at school, we anticipate that DH will go back to work, as children get more expensive, and if those additional costs increase quicker than my pay rises come, then we will need to go back to two incomes - but if wee can afford it, I would support him continuing to be an at home parent, or to find part time work, if he wants to.

So here's what is bothering me (and what leads into my question) ... the books seems to be targeted at assisting women in understanding how men (generally) think in the workplace, how that can differ to how women (generally) mean / interpret / filter / etc things, and how by being aware of these differences, you can chose to approach things in a way which will get your desired result better. Eg: instead of explaining the facts and circumstances (like I have above!) you may chose to start with the bottom line, and then ask if background would help.

It's not directive, it's just information and findings from (literally) thousands of surveys and interviews, with the data compiled with case studies, conclusions, etc.

But there is this ongoing assumption from the (mostly men) interviewed, that at the end of the day, it's great for women to work and all, as much and as hard as they can after making sure their families are a-ok.

Eg: a high ranking person was talking about women getting promoted, and how it peeves a lot of guys when a woman gets promoted at a comparable timing to men, when at the end of the day she's worked less hours, put in less time for marketing, BD etc (and therefore has brought in less clients, less work, etc) but no one can say this or express their resentment publicly, because they'll look like a jerk ... but in the same breath, everyone knows it's not fair, because the guys who were promoted have worked longer and harder, and the woman doesn't necessarily deserve the promotion on the same timing and the same trajectory -- but they can't say that. THEN at the same time, he says something like, "If her kid is sick, obviously you want her to be able to leave early and take them to the paediatrician - because you'd want your wife's boss to let her do that"

THAT'S my problem!! Right there! The assumption that (a) your wife is never going to be the boss; and (moreover) (b) the assumption that if your kid is sick, it's your wife's responsibility to take them to the Dr.

How about YOU take them to the Dr??

What happens in your family, or in people that you know - is it instantly the assumption that if someone needs to leave work or stay home or whatever, that it's the mother?

Is it a joint decision, based on what you each have going on that day?

Is there an assumption that it's the guy's job? ((I can honestly say that when DH went back to work for a few months between DS1 and DS2 that he took time off when DS1 was ill, and his work was not happy at all! They couldn't get their head around the fact that anyone with a penis needed to take carer's leave for a sick child, and actually tried to tell him he wasn't allowed to do it any more, but we responded in pretty plain terms to that suggestion...)

Do you take it in turns?

Is it based on something else (where you each are, which one of you has the car, where the child is, etc?)

I'm interested to see what others say ...

Ours is shared. Both DH and I work, DH full time, me part time (I'm a boss!). I am the higher income earner also, despite my part time status.

If one of the kids are sick and we need to pick them up from school/childcare etc, or need the day off to care for them, we generally work it out based on the following
a. if its my work from home or RDO - then me
b. who had the last carers leave day?
c. what have we each got on workwise that day
d. is it after 2pm? As then my Mum has finished work for the day and we will ask her to help

Your post riles me up too, I get so annoyed with some peoples perception about mothers in the workplace, whereas Fathers are treated no different to males who aren't fathers - Grrrrr. I am part time and have a busier workload than 2 of my male co-workers and perform higher than both of them. They are full time. So Mothers are certainly not 'not pulling their weight'

This is something that ****s me too. When I am working, my job is generally more demanding than DHs. I have no one who can just step in at a moments notice and do my job, meet my clients etc. I travel most days so if I'm out on a farm with a client I'm not able to take a call, and I'm not able to leave at a moment's notice. DH on the other hand is. He's able to leave and know there are others who will pick up the slack.

So, if a kid is sick at daycare, 99% of the time I'm not able to leave early to get them. DH is, and does. And because he finishes work at 3 and I'm supposed to finish at 5, he does the pick up after work and is rarely able to do overtime. If there is a big issue and he absolutely can't leave on time he calls and I change what I can to leave early.

But it's hard on both of us, because DH has met some resistance to needing that flexibility, and now that I'm on maternity leave and he can stay back or go to a call out whenever needed, it's a bit more 'acceptable'. My job is also low on flexibility, and I want to be the one that goes to my kids when they're sick. So when I do manage to change things to be with them it doesn't always feel like it's welcome. I think there's a reason I was better at this job before kids, and a reason I'm the only Mum in our region doing it. The others are men and very recently two young women have been added (prior to that I was the only female).

I think it comes down to a stereotype of what mums and dads should be doing, and should want to be doing. The dad should be a worker first, dad second. A mum should be mum first, worker second and therefore should stick to the simple jobs that you can move around easily. What they should be doing is making jobs like mine more accessible to mums, because I am bloody good at it when I have the right support and no one should be excluded from it just because they're a mother. They also shouldn't need to do it 'like a man' in order to be taken seriously.

Im the breadwinner (I work 25 hrs a week) and study 25 hrs a week
DH studies 25 hours a week.
Depending on what we are doing on the day, affects who will take the day off.
If I only have a half day at uni, and DH has a full day, then he will miss half the day while I have my class, then we swap in the carpark, and I take the child home. If its a work day for me, he will miss his class as we cant afford for me to not work, and if I dont work there is 99% of the time noone to cover me, so the clients health is at risk.
Its hard to juggle, but we manage

Yep this attitude annoys me too, but it really really gets my DH riled up.
He hates the assumption that he wouldn't be as much of a parent as me, that he wouldn't be as capable, committed, or responsible for caring for our son as me just because he's the man.

We both work part time, at the moment my DH makes more about 2/3 of our income but up until a few months ago it was even and next year I'll probably be making more than him.
If someone needs to stay home with our sick child we work it out based on what we have going on and how close we are to where our son is at the time.

In some ways it's hard to be juggling all the time, but it's also really rewarding. We both get the careers we want and we both get to be active parents. Neither of us would want to miss out on either of those.

PN when I was younger (maybe 25 years ago) I began to be unwell. I needed to be collected from school maybe once a month and taken home for a day or two.
My mum worked casual and my dad worked full time. If my mum was working she was in a role that often paid well, with tips. Also, she didn't want to get offside with the place and potentially lose lucrative shifts.

Dad often stayed home. It was long before wifi. He just stayed home and looked after me. I will have to ask how it was viewed way back then.

Maybe you need to write your own book :)

DH is the main breadwinner and works full-time, his work also has the greater possibility of progression and the associated $$$.
I work part-time, school hours. I was hired with them knowing I am a parent and the owner had the expectation the role would suit someone like myself.

Even with that arrangement we share the load with sick kids. Often we decide on who can afford to be away from work (no appointments and other commitments). Also on which one of us may be also not feeling 100%. We find winter, if one of the kids has a bad cold, then one of us has as well, or could do with a rest day.
DH's work likes to promote themselves a family friendly, so they are OK with dad's having time off. Well to clarify, the business is ok, but his direct supervisor is not (middle-aged woman, no kids and cannot understand why I don't take all the time off :rolleyes:)

I do find though, that other appointments fall on me to organise and take the kids to. DH is fine with the GP visit when they are sick, but dentist, optical, any other concerns, he just expects me to do. Now I snap back, that is he has a concern about the kids that needs an appointment, he is welcome to arrange it.

It is frustrating the assumption that the female is always the care giver and that any time taken off for kids is grumbled about. Yes, I have to leave on time due to children, but when I was studying part-time of an evening, I also had to leave on time. Also before kids, I had other things I wanted to do outside of work, which meant I also took time off (annual leave) and left on time. Women get bagged for taking Maternity leave, but I have worked in environments where if a male decided to take extended leave or even resign (only to return) for an overseas holiday for the same length of time, it was deemed a great thing and celebrated!
I point out at work now, that everyone has commitments of some kind and just because I have children/work part-time does not mean I let down the business. For example one of our staff is a big local footballer, around grand final time if his team is playing we are lucky to see him in the office at all!

And that right there sums up the patriarchy :/

It wasn't an issue when I wasn't working (naturally because I was home all the time anyway) but now we are both working it's usually DH that takes the day off if need be because his work is more flexible like that than mine so we work it out as it happens. As a teacher they need to arrange a casual to come in and cover me, but with DH, there are more than enough men on crew to cover his work. I do work at the school where our youngest 3 go so if they got sick when I was working I know they would be right in sick bay or if they were really bad I have someone I can call to get them. Dh works out of town so if it was a sudden thing it would be harder for him to arrange it, but if we knew a kid was sick it is easier. He also works a 4on-4off roster so he technically only works 6 months of the year anyway.

We both work part time flexible hours. We shared time off however, I am the organizer and decider around who stays home and who goes to work. My work is in a corporate environment and DH's isnt. Both have different restrictions and bonus'.

I originally posted a novel explaining my experience with this. I quit my job because of the way I was being punished/bullied about my parental role. I was under terrible stress and pregnant with DS2, so I quit. But re-reading it just made my stomach turn.... ugh. So this is take two.

Yes. Women are most often expected to sacrifice their job/themselves to care for a sick child. I hate that. If I'm lucky, when I return to work I'll go and work for DP's boss and it'll pretty much rule out any of this happening to us again. Afterall, it won't matter to him which one of us goes home, he's down one employee no matter what.. lol.

I get sick leave, as a subby DH doesn't so it falls to me and always has based on that alone. Now though DH is SAHD and works part time and I'm full time so kids stay with him if needed although it's much less than when they were wee squids getting sick all the time at crèche.

I have the opposite. My boss expects my DH to take some of the sick days for the kids. His boss also expects it. My boss has young kids so has an understanding. We have known DHs boss for over 13 years and he couldn't care less if DH took sick leave for the kids. Especially since he can work from home.
We decide who is staying home based on who has what on and what can be moved. I find it difficult because when they're ill, I just want to be with them.

More often than not, DH will take time off work if it is known early morning or previous night. Or whoever is on drop off's. DH is a shift worker so it isn't always one of us doing the same thing.

Another reason he stats home most if the time is finances. I am perm casual, 2 days a week (I don't get paid when I am not there, DH does), so unless the kids are really sick, it makes more sense for DH to stay home..

My workplace knows my family comes first, and are very flexible about leaving early or working from home if I need to, but DH also likes to help the kids when they are felling unwell..

We have a fairly simple rule. If I'm at home, I deal with it. If I'm not, then DH deals with it.

Having said that, I work on-site only in school terms, so have the school holidays at home. And have applied to cut down to part-time in a few months too.

It really irritates me when I'm the third person on the emergency contact list and am the first one called. No. Call DH. He's the Daddy, he can leave work, he can take calls while he works, call him. Not me. And even if you cannot contact DH, you call contact #2 on the list (PiL). Don't come straight to me because I'm the Mamma. Call contact #1, then #2. Then me. That has happened before and work insisted that I go. I was really mad: I shouldn't be in that position, nor should work. I was looking forward to my afternoon. DH was also angry, he should have been called.

DH's work are really OK with it: he can work from home and will make up some of the hours if he needs to. He is contactable by phone. He will go in during the evening after I get home from work for a couple of hours to deal with stuff. So DH doesn't really get "time off" for Liebs being ill, but he gets something.

DH and I would probably like to have a chat to some of those men interviewed too!

We decide based on what works for that day - factors taken into consideration include - who has what on, whether get paid if off (e.g. if I am contracting no work no pay), what is best for the children (e.g. DS still has BF, so if he is sick it may be easier for me to be off), whether can work from home etc. etc.

DH would never assume it would be me, although I am definitely considered the primary caregiver.

How old is the book? Where is it from, here? or abroad?

I am not sure I would let the interviews rile me, because in general I have not encountered those opinions from men who do have partners who are working (I would say that actually I have encountered more negative opinions about womens roles from women).

Whoever take the days off, I do think that in most cases there is one partner who is the one who takes on the role of 'making sure the family is ok' - in some families that is the man, and I think that role can shift over the years.

I am not that convinced that men and women think that differently really, and if they do I am not sure that getting women to approach things like men is the answer, I wonder if there is a book for men, to understand women better so that they can approach things in a 'female' way - I doubt it somehow. Really it would be better for there to be more acceptance in that different people have different ways of doing things and recognizing the benefits in different approaches.

Just from a different perspective, being the one who has to choose which parent to call at times.... I often find if I call the father, I am told to call the mother.... More often than not. Also often parents are not logical about who they list as the emergency contact, and they may put things in the "wrong" order....

So while I totally agree that it seems wrong, society as a general rule hasn't moved on from the idea that women are primarily the caregivers...

Personally I'm not totally bothered by that, but if I was given different information from a school or a parent I would contact the parent I was told to - whoever it was. I think that's the issue, kind of understandable that people might assume, but if told differently they should listen. And certainly no one should be judged for their choices - whether it is working or not, male or female.

Book is from the US, published 2011.


Yeah. We hardly break the mould, as it's not unique, but a fair divergence from the stereotypical ... to the point that I actually only took the maternity leave work would (graciously, generously) give at full pay, and then DH took the 12 months unpaid parental leave.

It worked for us. Wouldn't work for everyone.

DH has always been the emergency contact for the DSs - places still tend to call me the first couple of times, but they learn quickly ...

:

---

Book is from the US, published 2011.

---

Working conditions in the US are quite different from here (lack of - statutory holiday entitlements, parental leave, sick/carers leave etc.) and I think these things do have a big impact on peoples views and perceptions.

If dp is home he does it but if he is at work then I do, purely because I can generally get away more easily and I have very generous leave provisions. Sometimes, if I have interviews booked or can't get out of a meeting dp will stay then we will tag team it. It really depends on the day and the situation.

As a (former) single parent who works effectively as a contractor (if I don't work I don't get paid) in a job which is almost impossible to have "sick leave" or "leave early due to sick child" it has traditionally been my father (the boys' pop) who has looked after them.

It will be interesting to see what happens now that DP isn't working - he will be doing the majority Of household tasks Etc and he will care for the kids when they are sick.

Mind you he is also setting up his own business so things may go back to "pop care".

The nature of my work, though, doesn't mean I will be penalized for looking after children. However there is a massive glass ceiling for women in my industry, which is just awful.

Maybe one day there will be change.

:

---

Working conditions in the US are quite different from here (lack of - statutory holiday entitlements, parental leave, sick/carers leave etc.) and I think these things do have a big impact on peoples views and perceptions.

---

I get that, but IMHO the fact remains that there is this prevalent undercurrent in the interviews included that anything under the "family" banner is the woman's job, and she's getting indulgences, taking liberties, etc. I don't understand why it's being painted (through the interviews, not by you) as a gendered issue.

Now there are some absolute realities that if someone is working from home, whether or not they're doing just as much of the core work they'd be doing at work, it's different, and it often creates more work for the people at the office.

But I don't see this as being a gender issue - it's a balancing work/family life issue - and why is there the expectation that it will be the woman who will do all the bending and asking and massaging to make it work? It's a family decision.

That seems to be the resounding feedback from others here - that you as a family have assessed what will work for you. It's not these shapeless nameless men in the workforce deeming that the kids are your job and whatever you can do around that is gravy, so be grateful.

I've got a friend who works in an office where they have some principals who work part time and lecture part time, and my friend (and I gather some of her colleagues) hate it - whether it's a man or a woman - and they have some admin staff who work part time (all women, as all the admin staff there are women) and they despise that too. Because no matter how much work, dictation, typing, appointment booking etc the part timers get done from home, no matter how much they do outside of hours to make sure their performance is still up to the expectation required (and from what I understand, they do a LOT of extra hours, to make sure they're on top of their work - there's no criticism of that at all) the fact is that those people aren't available for presentations, client interviews, team meetings (I think they tried skype, but after a poo-splosions and a tantrum it was decided it wasn't conducive to ... anything ...), answering the phone, doing the mail, deliveries, and heaps of other stuff. So I hear - and understand - the gripes about flexible working hours, working from home, etc. And from what I can see, it creates resentment on both sides.

I don't know what he solution is.

But I do know that it makes me mad to see it painted as a women's issue (or *breathe, breathe*) a "Womens' Lib Issue".

Because I still see the need for flexible hours, time off to take the kids to the Dr, time off for school interviews or school holidays or whatever else as being a need the family - not simply the mother - has. In the same way as if you have a two parent household, and both parents are working, the cooking cleaning shopping etc remains a two person responsibility.

:

---

It really irritates me when I'm the third person on the emergency contact list and am the first one called. No. Call DH. He's the Daddy, he can leave work, he can take calls while he works, call him. Not me. And even if you cannot contact DH, you call contact #2 on the list (PiL). .

---

Just in response to this, in my line of work, the parents are always the first contact before anyone else. I kind of understand if it's a case of your child being ill, but in an emergency, say an ambulance had been called, would you really want you PIL called before you? It would always be our policy that parent 1 and 2 be contacted before anyone else on the list.

I wonder peanutter if it's partly to do with the industry one works in. I think some of the issues you describe would be less of a problem in some workplaces compared to others, and not always because of the workplace itself, but rather because of the type of work that workplace does. I know that it wouldn't be an issue in my current job, and probably my past job most if the time, But I have a feeling your industry would have much more difficulty managing some of those issues.

My work is quite flexible but I'm pretty sure it's only because my previous boss was genuinely caring and flexible. My current boss puts up with it because it's the status quo and I would be difficult to replace (not impossible but difficult). I can tell from his behaviourand some comments that he is not impressed whenever I our the other part time mum in the office need time off for the kids. It's not so bad for me as dh is often home due to his work hours but the other mum is a single mum of 4 with an absent ex so she really struggles sometimes.

It's generally me who has the day off or is called if one of the boys is sick. My work is more understanding (I'm a teacher in a public school) and even though I need replacing by a casual and I need to email work or the day or days it's still easier than DH negotiating within his corporate workplace. He also commutes 1.5 hours by train to the city, so any daycare calls are mine by default. I can use my FACS leave and then my own sick days as well - so I'm paid for the time off. I'm lucky that I also have my mum who is willing and able to have time off to help out as well.

That's possible myturn. The book was focussed on "corporate world" and the interviews were everything from accounting, legal, marketing, information systems, sales, and execs of all shapes and sizes.

I've seen it in all sorts of walks, though. A friend of mine works set hours (part time, set hours) and her husband works 5 days in a trade/labour area. Usually, he's off by a certain time, but sometimes he has to work later. When it came time for the kids to be in school, they agreed between themselves that she would do the drop off (and she modified her hours to accommodate this) and her DH explained to his work that he would need to finish by a particular time, to be able to collect them from after school care. They said that was fine.

Just words. Not once in the following weeks would his boss/foreman/etc agree to let him go when it had been agreed. The attitude was that you're working here, you get the job done, and your wife can sort out the kids.

I have no idea about the politics involved with his work, and whether that's something you'd normally get your union onto or whether there were other things he could have negotiated, or whether he just didn't want to put his foot down - but the net result was her DH said to her that she just had to do it - despite the fact that she had explained that it was physically impossible for her to get there in time with the agreed hours, and there was no more room for movement with her work.

I've seen it in lots of different areas ... but maybe you just hear about the bad examples?

There are some pretty sensible examples from other BB members below :) It's nice to hear.

I can see that is can be hard for employers. At my work place, we do have a need for part-time roles, along with full-time roles with some flexibility (as able to work overtime at short notice). I can get why they can get cranky for leaving on time, and leaving an open issue for them to deal with. But, I was hired part-time and so were other staff members, so we should not be used against us. We need the spread of people and skills sets, this could not be achieved if we dropped over all staff numbers (to the FTE) and everyone was full-time. We are in a regional area, so skills that we need are hard to come by, so someone with the skills at PT is better than not having anyone at all.

Even within industries, there seem to be certain jobs that are deemed more "acceptable" for working mothers. Where I work, there are jobs that are more entry-level, lower-paying jobs that are generally filled with women, and plenty are mums. Then you get to my job level and the ratio of men to women swings far the other way, getting more pronounced as you go up the ladder.

My employer could say that they'd prefer to employ a male over me, because even ifa male has kids his wife will look after them when needed, whereas I will need more flexibility to care for them. They should never make that assumption though, because the male who takes my job may be the one in his relationship who picks up the sick kids and stays home. I may be a dedicated breadwinner who has my husband called about the kids instead of me.

In any case, even though I do require more flexibility I put in as much as everyone else by working nights and weekends when needed, I do the hours required to get the job done and I am good at my job. It would be in my employer's best interests to keep me, an experienced worker, and provide the necessary support networks, than to find and train someone new who may not actually be more dedicated.

I'm lucky that my boss is wonderful, and understanding. He says it goes both ways, you do the hours required to finish the job and sometimes that's more, sometimes less. He's taken advantage of flexibility himself, to see his kids in plays and at sport. So my boss is fantastic, but indirectly there is a lot of pressure from colleagues at my level and upper management to meet targets and if I don't, it's not because of the kids but that is certainly implied by almost everyone around me.

:

---

Just in response to this, in my line of work, the parents are always the first contact before anyone else. I kind of understand if it's a case of your child being ill, but in an emergency, say an ambulance had been called, would you really want you PIL called before you? It would always be our policy that parent 1 and 2 be contacted before anyone else on the list.

---

DH should be the first call - if he passes it to me, then fine. He'll get it in the neck, not the childcare centre. If an ambulance were to be called, then DH should be called. And this was for a messy nappy and a temperature, not an ambulance. (I know, we weren't talking specifics.)

Actually, yes, I would like PiL called before me even for an ambulance. The reason being, I am a teacher. I work in a classroom. I do not keep my phone on me. I wouldn't hear the call, get to the phone, leave the building etc. I'd want someone who can easily drop everything and be with my son to be with him, so he was not scared and alone. That means that PiL would be there before I even knew about it, even if I were called first. And I'm OK with that.

Thank you for making me think about it.

And while DH's job is great at him leaving for an ill DS, or going to school plays, or working odd hours, they're rubbish at looking after me. So I need to work, can't do school drop off... tough, DH is going abroad for a week. In term time. Despite me providing a list of holiday dates and saying "in these weeks please". Has never, ever happened. Ended up in a place I'd rather not be, just so I can do the school run if needs be. His work can cope with Daddy looking after children, but not a man with a working wife. Bizarre.

Flexible working, is definitely a 'family issue' not really a women's issue - although it does predominately impact women at this point in time (but if it is impacting women it is impacting their family too you would think?).

I think overall the real problem is there is still such a perception that more hours = better job getting done - (which is far from the truth) - I am not sure that it really matters why you are part-time (children or no children) but is the fact you aren't there all the time. Most of the time why people can't cope with you not being there all the time - is because they can't be organised enough to make sure things happen along the right time-lines corresponding with your working hours - part-time working involves more planning and thinking ahead (if you aren't there at their beck and call - it is seen as a problem caused by you, not by their time mismanagement). It is like working with offshore companies, there are cost benefits, but there are also then requirements for a specific way of working, and far more organisation and documentation than otherwise required. It is quite odd to me that employers don't actually do a cost-benefit analysis on it, yes they could be unorganized and have you at beck and call all the time but that is actually costing them money (sometimes to me it seems like they think they are paying you full-time for part-time) and maybe for an extra half hour of planning on their part they could save a days wages. It seems ridiculous to me, in my line of work they would rather pay someone for 40 hours a week who only have 3 years experience, rather than pay someone with 10 years of experience for 25 hours a week who can achieve the same amount of work - why they would rather pay an extra 15 hours of wages just to have my bum warming the seat for those extra hours is beyond me.

Another element of it for men and women is it is very difficult to get a job that is considered to be 'beneath' your previous positions. For some people (myself included) - I don't necessarily want to work at the level I have previously at the moment, I have other priorities which take up brain power so I don't want to expend myself to the same lengths as I might have before, for me yes the reason would be children, but there are all sorts of reasons people might want to take up a position that is not at the same level (responsibility, salary etc) as a previous one.