Can you be a feminist housewife?

oh lol they outsource everything dont you know
followed by don't know why they have kids if they let strangers watch them

I disagree that that is now the common MN stereotype. In fact, I see it touted most often in your disagreements with it. Maybe when I joined, but things have changed. I think Sal's "work to pay the bills" model is the common one on MN. Like I said, now often part of a "hard working families" discourse (not here Sal!!) rather than a WOHM/SAHM debate.

Ok, I haven't come across it before.

if i meant you i would address you.the mn oft touted sterotype of working mums is the outsourcung greedy have it alls

I don't know if that's at me SM, but when I WOTH it was for mortgage & bills. Since I got made redundant I've contributed financially by doing every costcutting thrifty thing I can. Most people do - most people understand thriftiness is more than cancelling Tuscany this yea.r

ah yes the stereotypical avaricious family.the have it alls.working for bling and consumer durables.

hmmmm

the reality is women work because they want to, and it contributes to family.and lets face it most women are not coining it in,given wage differential between men and women

That's very true also Becky

While I would agree that that is the middle class discourse ("throwing money at the problem" vs "sacrificing nice holidays and new cars"), the reality is of course that many families (most?) where two parents work are time poor and cash poor. It ignores the reality for so many women. I think it is going to be "hard working families" vs "single mothers on benefits" TBH. And MN reflects that. And that too is a feminist debate of course.

Just mulling

about the wider economics of SAHP's. Thrifty, money saving, little discretionary spend, prepare from scratch, make do and mend approach common to a lot of one income families. There was a lot of talk of Time Poor Cash Rich working parents during the boom and now how this will play out now that the economy is sinking. Will we see an effort to play up Housewifeliness to leaved the jobs for the men or is the model of the dual income high spending family still the aspiration.

mn neighbour is housewife,thats no direct benefit to me
i work ft,she directly benefits from my tax and ni redistributed to services she accesses.my nursery fees employ nursery nurses and maintain a profitbale business for owner

sahm is directly beneficial to individual family circumstances,but cannot globally say its beneficial for others

It was just a bit of a light hearted joke given our disagreements on the last thread.

are the faces supposed to mean something?whats significant about you agreeing with me

I agree it is risky and precarious ( at agreeing with SM ) but I also agree with Sakura

And it is a job. If I didn't do it (I do) we would have to pay someone else to do it. It just isn't seen as a job by society and the patriarchy loves that because it means that SAHM choose to be in. Risky and precarious position, they can blame us for being where we are, as after all we could go and sell out souls to capitalism out to work in a 'real' job.

Radio 2 debate on Jeremy Vine just started on this.

sahm isnt a job.itsa lifestyle choice. ardous yes but not comparable to a job.and bigging up housewifery as marvellous set of complex tasks and as socially worthhile as employment is risible

sahm,is personal choice,makes individual difference to that family. doesnt overall benefit others or redistribute money or utilise those skills for others

bigging uo sahm as a venerated role is massively missing the point.

statistically yes birth is riskiest thing a woman will medically undergo, but that doesn't negate that birth itself has never been safer in countries with clinical staff and medical interventions eg scbu,nicu, epidural,cs to respond to any contraindications. the majority of births are straightforward and mw lead,not require too much intervention

but for as long as there is the mummy martyr who gives things up for her child/ren then that reinforces the childcare responsibility as female

it is a precarious and risky option, yes, fucking hell I agree with scottish mummy.

but

there's a little more to it than that.
I think it serves patriarchal society to trivialise child-rearing, and to trivialise pregnancy and childbirth too.
Will live in an upside down topsy turvy society where real work, such as raising children is given zero status and very little pay (none at all if you raise your own children), and where incompetent men are given huge bonuses out of tax-payers money as a reward for not doing their jobs properly.

So, because whatever women do is trivilialised or invisible, pregnancy, birth and childrearing has managed to get the status it has.

Women have to choose: do they want economic independance from a man, or should they forfeit that because they want to spend time with the children they risked their lives to bring into the world (if you don'T think childbirth is risky, please google "maternal death rates)

Women are stuck between a rock and a hard place, in a patriarchy

Personally, I wish this revolution would get off the ground

It's a different perspective. I was a SAHP for 5 years, and I certainly spent more time considering the nature of feminism then that I do now as a WOHP. But when I do think about it, I notice that different perspective. When I was a SAHP, it was about choice, and the validity of different choices, and parity of esteem. It was quite an individualistic approach perhaps. Now I am a WOHP, I think more about the collective. If I make a choice as an individual, how does that affect others in the choices they see as available for themselves? So yes, I think it is certainly possible to be a feminist as a SAHP/houewife, and I think that a lot of women are actually pretty likely to identify very strongly as feminist in that situation, because of the baggage that surrounds it. I know I did. But then my idea of feminism shifted when I went back to work. Not necessarily the details, but my overview.

being dependent to someone else wage,which determines
where you live
how you live
proximity to friends/family
is a precarious and imo risky option. and is dependant upon (usually) woman giving things up to watch child/ren but predominately to support male career.as female drops off employment she becomes more dependent upon her partner. the waged partner can meet any work commitment without worry about nursery or school drop off/collection.always able to work late and be spontaneous

meanwhile female - no wage.no recent employment.probably old references and no pension contributions.remain dependent upon waged partner

essentially enacting dominant economic partner (male) and economically inactive female role. and potentially your children never see mum work,and maybe think housewifery is womens work

PamSco, I agree with what you said, so I guess we are saying the same thing! I do know women who have stayed home for, say, five years and absolutely secured themselves financially as equal partners with their husbands (by marrying, in one instance, and getting equal pension input).

I also think there's a difference between being a SAHM for a short period with very young children and being a long-term housewife as a lifestyle choice. There's not an equal hit on careers/pensions.

Another, perhaps slightly controversial view, and I'd be interested to see what others think, is that I've noticed that myself and my friends who work out of the home tend to be more independent in other ways, such as having weekends away/night off with friends, setting aside time for exercise/hobbies, and so on, having more of a sense of identity separate to motherhood. I have several friends who have stayed home (and talk of 'sacrificing themselves', eek) who simply think they have to be attached to their children all the time, including the evenings and weekends, even if they are a bit older. Their husbands or partners don't seem to value them apart from the children or see they have their own needs (e.g. leisure, friendships) but happily go for golfing weekends or out with the boys from work for drinks. In other words, the housewife role for some women seems to purpetuate further inequalities in leisure time and general household priorities (working man first, everyone else second). Or is that just my friends?

Hardgoing I don't disagree with any of that but the question of whether you can take that time out or choose to be at home compromises feminist principles. My point is that it does if you do it unwillingly, that is, it is contrary to the free choice you should have.

Sadly it is financial factors that determine that freedom. I have built my own nest egg, paid extra into my pension to catch up and pre-empt my time off, and secured (by law) my 30% deed ownership of the house reflective of my capital investment (which was less that OH).

So I say you can choose to stay at home with feminist principles in tact if you have secured your equality.

We are probably saying the same thing but with a slightly different angle.

I think you can, wiggly, but I see your dilemma. At the end of the day, it's really about empowerment, and being confident in your choices. You have made a choice, and I don't see that you are any less of a feminist because you have nurtured children. A view of feminism that takes the view that children are equally as well looked after by strangers is missing the point, in my opinion. I see career women all the time who seem to be more trapped than those who are at home, because they are still not free to make choices about how and when they work, and they still face being judged by society. We do not live in a perfect world where we can exercise choice all the time, unfortunately.

sardine - many women who stay at home with children do not particularly enjoy it, but you did what you had to do, and you should feel proud of yourself, and not give yourself a hard time. Children need looking after, a good deal of time, patience and energy, and someone has to do it. You will learn something about life, about yourself, and you will be stronger for it. Don't knock it - try to get what you can out of it.

Yes, but it's always women who lose out on their pensions, their opportunities to fully use their talents etc.

I think it's perfectly possible to be a feminist housewife, but only if you have real economic independence. However, I have seen taking on the housewife role massively alter the power balance in my friends' relationships, so that when they met, they both had careers they loved. Now, one person's career and interests are subtley downgraded; the male partner is the one with the career, defines where they live, what type of livestyle they have, and also whether the marriage continues or leaves the woman in poverty (if they have not secured their financial interests). Worse, I have seen on this board recently women who are essentially economically dependent on their husband so wondering whether to put up with not being loved, not being treated nicely or worse (am now wondering whether SGB's contention that being single is ok is indeed the most important thing feminism can teach us...) I agree with HerBex about the economic hit being felt by women.

Lots of women tell me that they weren't that career minded anyway, they welcome the opportunity to step off the career ladder, that it's better not to be so materialistically driven, that they contribute a lot to the community, that they work in invisible ways, that looking after children is devalued, that teenagers need you around a lot anyway, working part-time suits the school pick up, that they've invested in their husband's career so it's better to keep focused on that one, they don't mind moving for his work to foreign countries or where they know no-one. Individually, they may well be right that for their families, this division of labour works best. But what worries me collectively, is that women are now missing from public life as leaders and managers. Collectively women are poorer in old age. Collectively, women's talents and education are not being utilized. I am not sure if as an individual you should sacrifice for the greater good (Xenia style) but it's worth thinking through what the world looks like when we make our choices.

Yes agree, if you have the choice and are happy with the choice you have made then losing pension etc is something you just have to suck up - regardless of gender. I missed out on 4 years of pension contributions because I did a PhD full time - my loss (financially), my choice, my gain (eventually).

The real crux of the matter is whether you are obliged or forced to make a choice you are not happy with.

My OH for example has been very clear up front that he isn't going to take time away from his career - ever. He never wants to retire. I accept that is his desire - I have a different outlook and will make choices that suit me. We'll rub along fine as we communicate and neither of us is martyring our desires.

Now I know I am very very lucky as we have worked very hard to give ourselves choices financially.

Hmmm....

Yes, I see that too. I suppose if the 'career' one left/will rejoin is one of the more traditionally hierarchical ones then what I'm talking about is more apt, whereas if you want to work in a role that isn't structured like that the 'taking time out' might be less of an issue. BUT you've still lost those pension accruing years.