Can you be a feminist housewife?

i think pam and i have it arranged pretty equitable
as not dependent upon person to maintain our lifestyle

But SM, you and your partner (from your description), are financially dependent. So how do you resolve it? It doesn't just go away because you're earning, does it? That just provides a nice safety net for you personally (not knocking safety nets, of course).

The Real not sure I understand why my situation isn't equitable (I think it is completely equitable) but I'll ignore as it doesn't move the debate forward.

I agree it isn't how you choose to manage your finances/emplyment it is how comfortable you are that you had a choice in deciding that set up.

100% agreement that valuing labour in the home whether you prefer it to be called a job or a task is a feminist issue as you say. Where I think disagreements happen is what does valuing mean? To me the answer isn't slapping a price tag on it - though I would in a debate where someone devalued said labour.

Both partners need to respect the effort and the result. This is trivial but I HATE doing the dishes - always have, just loath it. So that's his job. In return I do laundry - he doesn't enjoy it and (saddo here) does. That's the currency of equality to me.

If he turned round to me and said - dishes, of course you have to do them it is woman's work - he'd find a regular invoice posted pdq. Nah scrap that he'd find ground glass in his dinner.

joint
food
utilities
sky
broadband
insurance
nursery fees
holiday
all kids clothes
kids activities
equal just in case money into joint for emergencies
petrol

individual
own clothes
own phones
own travel cards
own social
gym
cosmetics
isa and savings

and no have never argued about a joint as we agree all actal and planned joint spending

its really not as hard as some of you make out

FWIW - my set up is like MBJ's option 2. However pre-kids I was in a well paid job and I saved and invested well. Since kids I have never returned to full time paid work - have done various paid PT work as well as lots of voluntary stuff.

And even when I was a SAHM earning no money from a paid job - I think some other WOHP and people within my community did benefit from my role as I did work at school - library, reading buddy and walking bus supervisor as well as running a toddler group and distributing charity newsletters.

linden,youre really over thinking this
yes food,utilities etc shared.and no i dont challenge every jar of marmite in trolley.we are partners with individual personal finances and shared joint stuff

the majority of posts i see on here about tight wads are partner/husband of housewife when he controls money.she doesnt have any money so is accountable to him

of course its equitable im not dependent upon someone else
i maintain salary, pension,got promoted.all result of working. my gains are my gains i dont depend upon partner for basics and i dont need shared money to eke out my time

SM - I must confess your posts have me wondering - do you have a food budget? What if one of you eats more than the other - or say likes brown bread rather than white? Do you end up fighting over the heating - say if one of you likes it hotter than the other? What about water consumption? Or using a landline? I would wonder if you ever have arguments over anything you pay for out of a joint budget? Can you hand on heart say your financial arrangements have never created a situation where one of you has felt resentful to the other because 'joint' money was used unfairly?

The way I see it. As things presently stand women (in a relationship) have 2 choices:

1. SM and PamCo's model which maintains independence but isn't equitable, especially when you throw children into the mix. Works for many individuals. (personally I think this is less equal)

2. A shared financial arrangement. Which also works form many but is still not equitable as women are in a more precarious and dependent position.

Either way being a feminist obviously can't be dependent on your employment status out of the home as neither option an equal option. And the value and valuing of the labour within the home is a feminist issue.

you need to rephrase,thats a bit garbled frankly
how is earning my own salary,and not being financially dependant compromising me

id worry more as a housewife,no wage,no recent work experience wholly reliant upon someone else. if i had no means of own money and where i lived etc was dependent upon someone else then id worry

But did you see the things that happened as a result of you needing to be off work, as purely your issue? Even when you were facilitating your partner earning money?

I find it odd, because to me, it sounds like a situation where there is a lot of dependence in the relationship, yet you only acknowledge the big financial issues, and keep them separate. I get that it works for you so that is lovely ... I just don't see it as independence when you are relying on each other so much. And when there is reliance that disadvantages women financially (as this kind of set up will tend to), it may not bother you but is a bit of a warning sign to people like me who've not yet had kids.

i paid my share of mortgage,bills etc as usual
all baby stuff split equally
as i said i saved and planned
and no i didnt do our money/family money

So, during your maternity leave, how do you resolve the kinds of debts/obligations I describe? Or did you just reckon (and I would understand why) that it was such a short time, a slight imbalance didn't bother you personally?

Wht jobs are unfeminist Bonsoir?

Hear hear Bonsoir

of course i had mat leave.6mth

LRD works from home SM.

Given that lots of jobs are deeply unfeminist, I don't think that WOHM or not has much to do with feminism. Feminism is about women being able to make the life choices they want to make as opposed to having a lifestyle defined entirely by men/society at large.

Oh ... so do you not do mat leave SM?! Crikey.

Well, I guess if you can manage it but I won't be trying that myself.

Interesting SM. So effectively you live within the means of the lowest earner with respect to home, holidays etc.

Yes becky I do, as we both want it this way.

cleverly in my scenario,no one stats at home,not sahp
thats the point neither of us wanted to be sahp

pam - I didn't assume, I said it was my impression. I was hoping people would confirm or deny - not trying to insist you mustn't do this unless you are rich! Hope that makes more sense.

Well, similar amounts left over after other commitments is what I would mean by similar, so I guess you do! If there was a big discrepancy, as in my crude example, do you think it would still work?

SM, I didn't actually ask who pays the plumber though. I asked how you calculate who earned the money if my DH goes out to work (so doesn't have to stay in for the plumber) and I stay in. It makes no difference to what I'm doing if I stay in, so I'm not doing it for him ... but if he were single, he'd lose that hour's earning. That's the point: being in a couple is, if you are the person out at work away from the home, very economically favourable. In your scenario, the person who works out of the home automatically benefits; the person who stays at home loses out.