Child Care

[Monika]

Originally Posted by yamashita

in germany its normal that working fathers sometimes do watch for their kids considered a babysitter.
when mothers I know want to go out for a glass wine with me or other friends, the father watches at the child.
also the mothers are watching at their kids if the father wants to go out for a beer with friends. thats normal here..
thats equality.
mothers are going to work and fathers are going to work.
the father cooks food or the mother cooks it.
I know its different in japan. thats o.k. but a bit strange for european persons.

The point is that the father watching the child would not be considered or called a "babysitter", he is called "father", silly. In Germany, too.

[Monika]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

A lot of the "women treated unfairly" stuff is really a myth based on misinterpretation. I`ve covered it a lot in other topics, but basically from a "western" viewpoint, it seems that no one can believe a woman would ever possibly CHOOSE to leave her job and stay at home once she is married/has children. In their eyes, it looks to be "oppression"... Even though the women choose to do so of their own free will. So this big "women are inferior in Japan!" talk spreads. Most women choose to stay home with the kids. Some don`t.

This doesn't really make much sense as in many western countries many women also choose to stay home or may be considered to be "bad mothers" by some (more traditional people) if they don't stay at home.

Most European countries have rules that allow the mother (or even either parent) to stay home 3 years after the birth of a child and then return to the job. They usually get money from the state for 1 to 3 years varying by country.

E.g. Germany: 3 years to stay home and return to the job. Until recently two years money of a fixed amount (so especially low-earning women would stay home for two years, good-earning women would return to their jobs very early, women with good-earning husbands would stay home 3 years). Since this year 3 years to stay home and return to the job, 1 year money relative to the last income (with a fixed minimum) - the hope of the government is that good-earning women will get children, too. The parties to the left want to invest more money into daycare, especially the situation for children under 3 is difficult. The parties more to the right however still think that women should stay at home and give tax breaks mostly to families with one person earning lots of money and the other spouse earning nothing. Especially Christian institutions still seem to spread that daycare would be harmful to children and mothers should care for them. However many daycares (mostly age 3 to 6, but also for 2-3) are run by the churches.

E.g. US: As there is no 3-year or even 1-year stay-at-home period with the guarantee to get one's job back, most women return to work after about 3 months after birth, unless the husband is really earning lots and the wife probably intends to give up her job forever. However, you will often hear that day care is supposedly harmful for kids and good mothers (if they can afford it) should stay at home. There is a movie about a real case: The parents divorced, the son lived with the mother. She started to work, put him into daycare. Because he was in daycare, the father got custody! He was working full-time, too. But he had a new wife who wasn't working. So you see what the general attitude towards daycare is. Stay-at-home moms are considered the ideal.

In France and Belgium however most mothers do return to work very early. In France daycare is free for children 3 and over and partially even 2 and over. Don't know about Belgium, could be the same.

Most women are content to take a lower salary because of the lack of strings attached to it - if the company is paying you a lot there is a lot more pressure to continue working... They`ve invested a lot in you. But if it`s lower to begin with (I`m talking like 85% of the average male salary, not like incredibly low), there is very little pressure to keep working once you decide to quit for family reasons. Employers expect it, so everyone parts on good terms. There are companies out there that pay women full salaries - sometimes in the same company there will be two standards - and those are the type of women who generally continue to work. The only reason the lower salary is more common is because the women themselves PREFER it as it takes the pressure off of them in the future.

Well, that's a thing that is really different about Japan and other industrialized countries. Not that there is a difference in salary: In the other countries, also in Germany, women still earn less than man. 85% would probably be a reasonable estimate here, too. BUT they aren't content with it! They want to earn 100%. They just don't. Earning 100% wouldn't put more pressure on them. They would still leave their jobs for a while after getting a child. So the employer paid them 100% - so what?! Doesn't give him any more rights or make her not get children.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Monika

This doesn't really make much sense as in many western countries many women also choose to stay home or may be considered to be "bad mothers" by some (more traditional people) if they don't stay at home.

[cut because I have no experience with European countries, so can`t comment.]

E.g. US: As there is no 3-year or even 1-year stay-at-home period with the guarantee to get one's job back, most women return to work after about 3 months after birth, unless the husband is really earning lots and the wife probably intends to give up her job forever. However, you will often hear that day care is supposedly harmful for kids and good mothers (if they can afford it) should stay at home. There is a movie about a real case: The parents divorced, the son lived with the mother. She started to work, put him into daycare. Because he was in daycare, the father got custody! He was working full-time, too. But he had a new wife who wasn't working. So you see what the general attitude towards daycare is. Stay-at-home moms are considered the ideal.

Really? That`s a total shock to me, as I have been bashed up and down by virtually every American woman I have encountered regarding my choice to stay home with my son. You`d think I was destroying the entire feminist movement by choosing not to work.
People may *say* that staying at home is the ideal, but in practice you end up being chewed out by every other mother around who hasn`t made the same choice. And some who have! I was even told I should be ashamed of myself, and that I "was spitting in the face of all the women who fought for equal rights". Yeah, really sounds like people think that the stay-at-home-mother is the ideal.
Sorry I`m a bit bitter about that, but it is actually something I have experienced. I`ll take the Japanese model where mothers actually can make the choice that is best for them and their children without being attacked left and right for it.

Well, that's a thing that is really different about Japan and other industrialized countries. Not that there is a difference in salary: In the other countries, also in Germany, women still earn less than man. 85% would probably be a reasonable estimate here, too. BUT they aren't content with it! They want to earn 100%. They just don't. Earning 100% wouldn't put more pressure on them. They would still leave their jobs for a while after getting a child. So the employer paid them 100% - so what?! Doesn't give him any more rights or make her not get children.

In Japan, I didn`t mean it placed pressure on her to return to work earlier after having a child, or that it placed pressure on her not to have children at all. Women still get just as much time off regardless of salary, and their jobs are guaranteed by law.
What I meant is when women flat out *quit*, as is pretty much the norm when they get married or have a child. Taking time off is one thing - the investment the company has made isn`t a waste. But if they invest a lot of time and training into someone who leaves within a few years, it has been a waste. Most Japanese (female and male) wouldn`t be so irresponsible as to do this.

[Monika]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Really? That`s a total shock to me, as I have been bashed up and down by virtually every American woman I have encountered regarding my choice to stay home with my son. You`d think I was destroying the entire feminist movement by choosing not to work.
People may *say* that staying at home is the ideal, but in practice you end up being chewed out by every other mother around who hasn`t made the same choice. And some who have! I was even told I should be ashamed of myself, and that I "was spitting in the face of all the women who fought for equal rights". Yeah, really sounds like people think that the stay-at-home-mother is the ideal.
Sorry I`m a bit bitter about that, but it is actually something I have experienced. I`ll take the Japanese model where mothers actually can make the choice that is best for them and their children without being attacked left and right for it.

Did you live in the US or did this happen online?

I think it's a general issue that people who oppose something are more vocal than those who agree. I.e. a mother who chose to work would then more frequently hear that she is neglecting her children from stay-at-home moms and from men.

I have lived in the US for a year and I have had online-discussions with Americans. These often went like this: Why is the teen crime rate so high? Because they were in daycare as young children. Why are their manners so bad? Because of daycare. Why are their school results so low? Because of daycare. And NOBODY of the Americans in these online discussions opposed that view, they all agreed with the first person who said so (at least to the point that it is one of the reasons for the problem under discussion). Men and women alike. I was the only one who said it's not because of daycare and that children with working moms are not worse off than those with stay-at-home moms. Or if they are, then the reason is that the stay-at-home moms in the US are those with well-earning husbands, so they are better off because they are richer.

In Japan, I didn`t mean it placed pressure on her to return to work earlier after having a child, or that it placed pressure on her not to have children at all. Women still get just as much time off regardless of salary, and their jobs are guaranteed by law.
What I meant is when women flat out *quit*, as is pretty much the norm when they get married or have a child. Taking time off is one thing - the investment the company has made isn`t a waste. But if they invest a lot of time and training into someone who leaves within a few years, it has been a waste. Most Japanese (female and male) wouldn`t be so irresponsible as to do this.

Oh, I see.

I guess that is really a cultural difference, i.e. Japanese seem to feel more connected to their employers. In America or Europe, men or women will just quit jobs, no matter how much was invested into them - e.g. to go to other employers who pay more.