Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to think that feminism should have thought about the consequences and set some rules.

(429 Posts)
TulisaLover Fri 09-Nov-12 20:33:34

I've been chatting with DP this evening and mentioned a post that's been doing the rounds on facebook. It's from a lady sending a message to This Morning about the cost of childcare - on the surface it's a powerful post.

To cut it down:

'I am looking to return to work next year and child care will cost 810 every 4wks - this is more than our mortage!!. The government should help with child care costs.'

DP and I agree with it's sentiment - that child care costs are crippling families, but not necessarily with helping for the costs - he said:

"This is why feminism should have laid down some rules. Both parents earning an income meant banks salivated and started lending for homes based on both. This has forced up prices to cover this as house prices are a function of the amount being lent. Society as a whole loses, bankers win. What should have happened is when you have kids, both parents should be encouraged to work part time so that childcare is shared - or failing that the higher earner whichever gender should have been the one to work. Problems like this wouldn't have happened."

It struck a chord with me - what do you ladies think?

Cross posted - yes, I would agree it is about falling into a trap.

TunipTheHollowVegemalLantern Fri 09-Nov-12 20:51:56

Large numbers of women have always worked before feminism was even thought of. Feminism helped ensure that women had better opportunities in the workplace and access to a wider range of jobs and would get paid the same as men.

Some people just love to blame feminism for everything, though smile

TulisaLover Fri 09-Nov-12 20:52:36

I think you're all concentrating on the poor choice of using feminism, and missing the bigger point sadly.

No, not poor phrasing as such - more a load of inflammatory bollocks.

StuntGirl Fri 09-Nov-12 20:52:44

Those pesky feminists, never thinking things through. It's all their fault y'know.

DameFanny Fri 09-Nov-12 20:52:46

Oh do do one OP

Chubfuddler Fri 09-Nov-12 20:52:55

But why should there be a sole income? Why does one parent have to stay at home? And how would that help if as you say mortgage lending has been been raised based on dual incomes?

My mother was a sahm for several years, and even when she started working again they only borrowed based on my dads wage in case she had to give up work for any reason. Because they were sensible enough to cut their coat according to their cloth.

I earn more than the national average but less than half what DH earns. Anyone telling me I have therefore drawn the short straw and must abandon the career I've worked for for ten years is going to get short shrift I'm afraid.

ecclesvet Fri 09-Nov-12 20:53:53

Clearly the Board of Feminists should have agreed some rules before they started all this fuss.

Dozer Fri 09-Nov-12 20:54:26

Um, isn't your concern really about capitalism?

TulisaLover Fri 09-Nov-12 20:54:58

He didn't say there should be one income - that's the non ideal scenario. The ideal is everything is shared.

Your DP said feminism should have laid down some rules. I think pointing out what shite that is is fair enough, tbh.

TulisaLover Fri 09-Nov-12 20:57:01

Fair enough lady - I agree that was a very poor choice of words and will be having words with him. But I do think his main argument is reasonable and childcare costs could have been avoided if the home wasn't so expensive.

fenix Fri 09-Nov-12 20:57:02

Governments would be well-served to subsidise childcare as it is in their long-term interest that both parents remain in the workforce.

People who work, on the whole, provide useful services that we all appreciate. They can fend for themselves in retirement. They need minimal assistance with housing. With their taxes, workers add valuable funds used to help others in vulnerable situations, as well as contributing to the costs of everyday services they use.

The fact that your DP referred to 'when women started entering the workforce' shows his ignorance of history, or perhaps a class bubble. Women have always worked. There was a blip around the 50s where the rose-tinted image of a stay-at-home housewife was promoted, which served the government's economic plans of the day. But before and after this, women have always contributed by doing work from home, menial labour in factories, the caring professions, in science, as domestic labour, as tutors etc... unless they were so wealthy, neither they nor their partner had a need to earn their own keep.

How, pray tell, should feminism have laid down some ground rules? It spans millions of women, in thousands of places over hundreds of years. Who is this one feminist leader you'd like to conveniently blame?

I would suggest your DP read up on the waves of feminism and how they all had differing motives and goals which were fought for. The vote, the right for marital rape to be seen as a violent act, the fight for contraceptives, the right to continue in education, the right to have an abortion - major aims of feminism, but hardly a major contributory factor to house prices.

Maybe you should take issue with the government's reluctance to replace diminished housing stock, with people who overstretched themselves and flipped houses, with second home owners who distort local market prices.

Chubfuddler Fri 09-Nov-12 20:57:06

Well DH can't work part time. His business would pretty much shrivel up and die. So I get to give up my career in the world according to your oh?

No ta.

MiniTheMinx Fri 09-Nov-12 20:57:44

Well OP I'm very sorry but you can't have enough income on shared art time work because the decision was taken not by feminists or even government for that matter, to employ two wage slaves on half pay! So what now and who's fault?

Chubfuddler Fri 09-Nov-12 20:58:04

Your dp is also assuming all parents are home owners. They aren't. Not even working parents.

TulisaLover Fri 09-Nov-12 20:58:35

'Maybe you should take issue with the government's reluctance to replace diminished housing stock, with people who overstretched themselves and flipped houses, with second home owners who distort local market prices.'

He's mentioned all those too before - entirely agrees. I think he's just a little misguided but his heart is in the right place.

StuntGirl Fri 09-Nov-12 20:58:36

Think about it this way OP - is it Rosa Parks fault we haven't achieved a world of racial harmony? Of course not.

TulisaLover Fri 09-Nov-12 21:00:00

OK chubfuddler - that is fine. If both parents want to work - no problem with that. But then childcare costs are their lookout, not everyone elses.

What do you mean you'll be having words with him? You're the one who bloody posted it.

I thought his argument was about feminists not laying down some rules and therefore causing house prices to rise, in a round about way.

I think neither of you have got a fucking clue about what you're wittering on about really.

So, YABU.

kim147 Fri 09-Nov-12 21:00:37

We live in a capitalist society. Having 2 incomes allows people to buy more and have more disposable income. Housing is limited in this country - the effect of too little housing being built.

So what effect will this have? A valuable product is in short supply, banks are willing to lend.

It's not feminist's fault - it's the nature of the free market we live in.

Yama Fri 09-Nov-12 21:00:58

Is anyone really obtuse enough to think that women have any power whatsoever to set rules?

Poor men, their lives have been fucked up because of women #no342.

MiniTheMinx Fri 09-Nov-12 21:01:01

If both parents want to work - no problem with that. But then childcare costs are their lookout, not everyone elses

but some families need two incomes

PamelaSwynfordDeBeaufort Fri 09-Nov-12 21:01:40

But I do think his main argument is reasonable and childcare costs could have been avoided if the home wasn't so expensive.

and what? Childcare costs could be avoided if petrol prices hadn't gone up, if local schools were the ones your kids always went to (we have to travel 5 miles to dds), if food was cheaper.

Its no surprise that the cost of living has an impact on whether one person remains at home. Its also not surprise that in some couples both which to pursue their careers and therefore need childcare.

I really don't get what your saying because now is sound like 'the cost of living means we need childcare'

Chubfuddler Fri 09-Nov-12 21:01:55

Misguided but his heart is in the right place?

Oh boo hoo. I'm sorry for not being grateful for his pearls of wisdom about what feminism (as if it were a cohesive movement with stated and fixed aims and objectives) should have thought about.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now