Feminism sold a lie - Women, today, are worse off than ever

But feminists consistently advocate for men to do more, for workplaces to be more accommodating of parents, and for the availability of affordable and high quality childcare! What are you talking about? I have not understood a single thing you've said on this thread, @PeonyPatch!

@childofthe607080s
@GagMeWithASpoon

I didn't say they all did the right thing, but there was certainly more pressure on them than now.

You’re joking right? 😂😂.

All the men drinking their wages, beating their wives and children, kicking them out in the middle of the night etc.?

“Doing the right thing” don’t mean very much

they could drink the wages and then rape the missus - doing the right thing seems to mean “keep it behind closed doors”

I suppose one difference about the past, for good and ill, no doubt is that fathers/men were under more pressure to "do the right thing" wrt to their children and wife and were chastised more for not doing so.

Born in 1970s so a older than you.
My mum and her contemporaries definitely wore the trousers around the house the dad's usually deferred to their wives.
But the wives did all of the housework and child rearing and often had part time jobs fitted around childcare.
They were financially dependant on their husbands and some were trapped in violent marriages.
Divorce and children out of wedlock were big taboos and it was the women that were blamed.
Sexism was rife.
So not at all all rosey.
As a young women at work I was constantly catcalled (worked in a male environment) and walking down the street.
We were expected to be the secretaries rather than the bosses.
However when I had my first DC the majority of the mums did give up work at least until the youngest started school so we did have those precious early years with DC and weren't torn between work and DC, most mums picked up and dropped off from school and DC had lots of play dates with friends after school too.
There was minimum help with childcare-12 hours term time only from age of 4 when eldest were at nursery then increased to16 hours term time at age of 3 by time my youngest went to nursery.
Those that did go back to work had a lot of help /free childcare usually from the maternal grandmother.
However some of my contemparies were badly burnt by divorce as they were had given up careers to look after DC making them financially vulnerable and their contribution to raising DC, whilst DH was mainly absent and pursuing their career, wasn't valued or acknowledged.
But it was more "acceptable" to be a SAHM and I do agree that women now still carry the majority of the mental load, planning, organising, child rearing and housework, all while working full time, it is exhausting and stressful. My observations are that younger men are definitely more involved than my dad or DH but I think its the women that still do the loins share at home.
I think being a SAHP is undervalued and always has been, but now there is a lot more expectation to return to work after having a baby.

My mum would have liked to think so. She loved 'mod cons' and was so pleased when the (beautiful) range was replaced with a fitted kitchen with orange formica cabinets.

My nannas stuff didn’t hang around all week - mangle and then Outside or by the fire ( ferocious )

very working class- twin tubs and heated boxes sound a step up !

So you had all week ahead to wash, dry, iron and air. When I was a child we had a twin tub fir washing, then clothes went outside or on the airer over the range. When the range was taken out we got this thing called a flatly, that was a metal box thing you put clothes in, plugged in and it heated them dry. There was always some stage of washing on the go, although probably not all week. So maybe that was just tradition.

I don’t. Some mothers would prefer it just for them, with their husband’s agreement, Like SPL- that’s optional, not enforced. Not every couple wants that.

Why was wash day Monday? Because the air was cleaned then after the factories had shut on Sunday

We were a mining community so all had coal fires, long after there were other options. All the chimneys created a similar smoggy effect, and of course meant a lot of dirt inside too.

Yes, it was never about helping people to buy houses, it was always about offloading a cumbersome responsibility. I'm always baffled by people surprised more council housing wasn't built after the sell-off. Of course it wasn't, the point was to get rid of the burden of maintaining social housing.

In the short term, though, people did benefit who wouldn't have been able to buy otherwise, and some of those people made a fortune selling up later.

Yes it certainly wasn't commonplace. Especially amongst working class women I suspect.

I would propose 3 years SHARED between the mother and the father. 1.5 years for the mum then 1.5 years for the dad. They both get the same impact on their careers. They both bong with their child. They both share the same level of responsibility at home and outside the home.

Yes showing the dirt was a big issue particularly if you lived in an area with heavy industry. When we had the three day week one of the revelations where I lived was we saw blue skies. Having said that I loved the heavy fogs when I was a kid, something exciting about walking along in your own little bubble and then hearing footsteps but seeing no one. I obviously wasn't a nervous child.

I went with women who were older than me, I still know two who did it after me one in her 80s and one in her 90s who decided to do it when I graduated so closer to the person you know. I guess we were lucky with our employer and one person inspired the next two or three so all the women I worked with who were ten years younger than me did it.

My mum used to say brown swirly carpets didn't show the dirt!

Oh the horror of it all. What were we thinking?

Yes I think you explain it well. We bought our first house in 73, in 74 it was worth less than we paid for it. Two babies in the 70s and it was very hard for a few years but by 79 things looked better, not to mention my second one was starting school so childcare was easier.

I wouldn't want to go back. I feel sad thinking about it and the things we struggled to do for the children. They don't remember it the same so I guess we hid our worries.

I worked with someone in the early 90s. She finished work on the Friday, elective c.section on the Monday. Following Monday her, husband, baby and nanny went on their two week summer holiday, when the got back she returned to work. So she had exactly three weeks off work which included her two week summer holiday. I didn't know if I should admire her strength or pity her. I know I couldn't have done it, I don't think I was dressed three weeks after my c.section.

Eight weeks is also a big challenge, again I don't think I could have done it, I usually had six to eight months off but back in the 70s that also included looking for a new job.

Smoke and mirrors you may be right/ the 80e also had the great council house fiasco ( government give away ) which has led , in my opinion, to loads of the housing problems we see today

I had my sons in the 90’s. All my female friends and colleagues who had children went back after 3 or 6 months. I went back when mine were 8 weeks old and worked up until the last minute. If you wanted professional respect and not to put your career on the “mummy track” this was essential. There was a lot of discrimination, I wore my engagement ring on a long chain around my neck so it wouldn’t be noticed. We paid very high interest rates on our mortgage too.

Also, I'd say a lot of 80s 'prosperity' was smoke and mirrors that bit a lot of people on the bum in the end. Irresponsible lending and borrowing meant a lot of people living lifestyles not matched by actual income.

Looking back now, there was high unemployment masked by high spending. In the rush to get us all owning homes, banks lent with a lot less caution and as a result, repossession was, as you say, a sadly common thing. Then in the 90s, of course, there was the endowment fiasco.

The 80s felt like prosperity after the 70s, but a lot of it was an illusion. In addition, a lot of the 'throwaway society' developed at this time, when we were encouraged to keep up with the Joneses by having the stuff.

I think some of today's issues stem from that time of spend, spend, spend, even if you hadn't got it. Attitudes shifted, expectation increased, we needed more and more to be content.

I've great memories of growing up in the 80s, but the whole decade was a cheque written against the future we have never really been able to cash.

Off topic a bit, so I will just add that the lifestyle shift in the 80s wasn't really about feminism, it was about a nation letting its hair down after a long period of struggle.

Salaries did rise faster than inflation measured over the 1970s but there was a huge lag which meant for a few years many people struggled immensely

we have a similar story in the 80s - on average people were better off by the end of it but many people suffered unemployment and houses were reposseswed

we have over the last decade ( approx , not doubled checked this) seen a decline in average living standards

in absolute terms - since living standards were rising in the 1970s they were clearly lower than in the 1980a and living standards probably peaked between 2000 and 2010. Meaning that living standards in the 70s and 80s were LOWER than in the 2000s. My feeling having lived through these years is that living standards now are still substantially higher than the 70s and 80s but the trajectory isn’t good ( note I was living in a mining area so maybes the uk as a whole wasn’t as bad as I recollect but with unemployment at 25% in my region living standards struggled )

so living standards peaked decades after the major changes brought about by feminism had been achieved

so yes problems are real, a downwards trend is not good , but the past wasn’t better unless you look in the relatively recent past