Can you be a feminist housewife?

Dizzy career heights apply only to a small percentage of the population though. Most people just have a job, though it may be defined as a career because it is not unskilled NMW type work, requires some qualifications and skills, and may involved supervisory functions and an increasing pay grade over time. Those sorts of jobs/careers are very amenable to being more flexible; it's just that there isn't the political will to make it happen.

It's rarely realistic to share those child-related priorities if you are in the business of scaling dizzy career heights, though. If you are both doing 50% international work-related travel, you have to outsource them to a reliable third party. Which is not to everyone's taste, hence one parent scaling back.

Bonsoir* - that's why I'd like to see much more research into this area. I do think it is a mistake to assume that the only desirable role is to scale the career ladder. Not everyone wants to and not everyone can be a high-flyer anyway.

However, I think a lot of women's priorities change after having children because of society, not because of their own desires. Once a woman goes back to work when her DC sart school for example, it's true her priorities may have changed. She may place a lot of importance on being able to easily take time off for the DC's parent/teacher events, dental appointments, sick days, or simply because of wanting to be there every day after school, etc.

But while these may be priorities how many women want it to be their priorities? How many would willingly hand over those sorts of priorities to their partner if it were possible? Not always in its entirety but say 50% of it so that both parents could make the best of family and job.

That's why flexible working practices need to become the norm. At the moment these sorts of roles tend to fall to the woman because it's somehow seen as easier for her to take time off work at short notice or to go part-time. If that's what she wants to do, good for her, but i think many women find themselves forced into that role without being entirely aware of it because of the way our society is structured.

Mothers who resume their careers after a child-raising break don't always want to scale dizzy career heights, so I don't think that the career trajectory of mother returnees is "damaged" solely by the fact that they have taken time out, but rather is changed by virtue of priorities that are different to those that the same women had pre-children.

THanks for bringing us back to the point Himalaya. Apologies for taking the thread off on a tangent but I couldn't stand by and see such women-blaming posts go unchallenged.

Anyway back to the point...

I'd like to see a national survey of mothers would want.

For me being a SAHM would be soul-destroying. Love my children as I do, I know I would feel like I'd lost a part of my identity if I'd have to give up work and being a SAHM can be so relentless and exhausting. I admire women who do it enormously. They have huge amounts of stamina and if they've chosen the role willingly they are obviously very secure about their identity and goals.

I'd like to see a world where it's a non-debate and each woman can do what she likes. I think that due to biology we will probably find that although many more men would be drawn to the role we would still find more women than men want to stay at home even if paternity leave and maternity leave were identical, flexible working practices were the norm, and staying at home had a high status. Breast-feeding is a major factor and as anyone who has tried to BF and return to work knows (me included) feeding/expressing and working can completely take over your life and leave room for nothing else.

As a feminist I wouldn't have a problem with SAHPs being predominantly women. I also think a lot of women - feminists or otherwise - would choose to SAH if it didn't have such a crushing effect on their careers. Why should a 5-year gap have such serious consequences that it is affecting someone's career 15 years later? Given that HALF our population is female and that MOST women have to work throughout much of their adult lives, shouldn't we be trying to change working practices so it is NORMAL for people to take time out without it being a death blow to their career?

Why is our economy set up around male reproductive roles rather than women's despite the fact that women have always been an important part of the economy and actually outnumber men in this country? Why have we allowed our economy to entrench this rather than dismantle it and why are we allowing things to get even worse right now with the reduction in the childcare element of WTC and the essential privatisation of childcare which means there simply isn't enough of it to go round? This is 2011. Are women equal or not? If we're working within the current system then equality for women has to start with equality of economic independence, which means heavy subsidies of childcare. Here in the UK we have one of the highest costs of childcare in the world.

I'd like to see things changed much more dramatically so that staying at home becomes a valuable occupation in its own right. It may not be possible to be 'paid' for it under our current system but it can certainly be better protected. The earning partner can sacrifice half his pension contributions to the SAHP for example, and they could be further boosted by the state in lieu of the tax-free allowance that SAHP would have if they worked. That way the role is respected in fiscal law and a SAHP doesn't find themselves massively disadvantaged for those years out when they later come to retire.

In response to your point Himalaya, when dh and I decided to have a child, we did discuss the practicalities, as most do. He earned more than me by a fair bit, so it made sense for him to continue being the main earner and me the SAHP. However, even if we earned the same or I earned more, I knew I wanted to SAH, there was a deep conviction on my part that I was going to be far more responsive to the child's needs maybe because I carried it, gave birth? I remember my first time out for two hours leaving ds with dh. I came home to find him asleep in three layers of clothes with a temperature, next to a hot radiator. Dh is a clever guy, and one anecdote is not to imply that men can't look after babies or that women can't give up control. But the fact remains, for me, concerns about 'protecting' dh's career or my future earning potenial were way down on my list of priorities.

Of course, I am a product of my own upbringing. I had a SAHM as did dh. It is familiar, it worked for our mothers and fathers and is working for us. The thorny question is, why bother studying for a degree/training/building a career, just to let it all slide when a child is born? Is that letting the side down?
I don't think so, not if it's what you feel is best for your family and self. I certainly don't think careers or the world of work are any more important or valuable than being a SAHP.

The social construct is the outsourcing of infant feeding, which has happened in many societies throughout the millenia but which is not natural and does not give optimal health outcomes for either mother or child, but does allow the mother to disengage from her child in order to fulfil other roles, be that working for money (historically, this would mainly have involved working for her husband) or running her household and bringing up her older children.

Riven -

But the point I am making is not about affordable childcare, vouchers, schools etc.. (important though all that stuff is).

It is that in a happy, mutually respectful relationship etc...still 9 times out of 10 if someone is going to be a SAHP or secondary earner/main carer it is going to be the mother.

Its like people don't even see that there is another option - why immediately start to talk about extended family, paid childcare, the responsibility of employers etc...but ignore the question of why so many happy/respectful/mutually agreeable couples choose to protect the husband's career and long term earning power at the expense of the wife's - rather than both going part time and/or less pressured and sharing the family responsibility more evenly.

-(I'm not asking you to justify your personal choices in your situation, its more of a general point.)

SM - I know mums have worked throughout history and work around the world, but they also tend to take more day to day responsibility for young children as well. That's not just a culturally specific idea that has emerged in the past 50 years in industrialised countries as far as I can see.

no its not natural,its a social construct,this giving things up lark
do peruse the bit of thread about industrialisation and mums and kids worked, housewife is a post war affectation or something rich folks did

Sorry to harp on, but the OP wasn't asking about whether dysfunctional, abusive relationships are a good idea or not. They aren't.

She was asking whether a respectful, mutually beneficial relationship of fixed housewife-and-earner roles is consistent with feminism.

Without disparaging anyone's happy relationship and it-works-for-us arrangement I do think it IS a problem that so many women still choose (or wander into) a situation where having children has so much more of an impact on their professional life and lifetime earning power than their DHs.

Why don't people want to challenge this situation - is it because they think it's natural for mothers to be more involved and therefore can't be challenged? Or because they think it's natural and therefore don't want to talk about it, or what? It seems so fundamental to much of the inequality between men and women.

FWIW I think it is natural for mothers to be more willing to give up more for their offspring in the early years than fathers. But that doesn't mean it can't be challenged or changed.

some men may have a habitual dysfunctional state which is re-enacted time and time again. the women its enacted upon should try to get out,and seek what support they needs to recover

and yes some people both men and women are dysfunctional,and cause considerable harm and upset to many

Scottishmummy it was secretsquirrel who used the term 'hapless.' Coming back to your post, I agree that self-reflection and a realisation of your own part is a good thing. The thing is though, most abused women do that. The women who stay with abusive partners are well outnumbered by those that don't. The women who leave do learn and move on. Their abusive partners OTOH change nothing and simply go on to abuse more women. Although often they learn too - how to abuse more cleverly.

One abusive man can ruin several women's lives and their children's. Yet all our focus seems to be on making it women's responsibility to sort it out or leave, not on men's responsibility to change.

The same notion applies, to a lesser extent, to women living in relationships that are casually sexist and disrespectful.

I don't know what the solutions are. I suggest paid paternity leave, a better enforcement of maintenance for non-resident parents, proper punishment for DV as starters. Pretty basic stuff really, but though politicians of all colours talk the talk they rarely put it into action. In the case of the Coalition they are actually going backwards by charging women to use the CSA.

i havent said women are hapless,far from it,so i dont know what subject matter you feel you are avoiding for fear someone will label you smug

I am saying a realisation or reflection of a situation when accompanied by desire to act is a good thing.and yes there is a point when hopefully someone put upon thinks how did i get here,i want a change.thats a powerful psychological turning point

and there is some self exploration,and reflection to understand situation.and avoidance of and recognition of such signs in future

'Not to get involved in the first place'

yes isn't it odd how smugness is often pointed out . Perhaps if you don't want to be called smug you should examine your own behaviour and how you came to be in that situation. Because that is the issue. Alternatively, you shouldn't get involved in the first place. It should be easy to tell which thread you'll be accused of smuggery on from the very first post, because that's usually the most representative and extreme of the thread.

Unless you take up with an unusual abuser who shows his colours straight off, you're usually 'involved' before problems start showing, so 'not getting involved' in the first place is not a solution.

I too get twitchy when people assume not leaving = hapless and helpless. I never said that. Contrary to popular opinion and media portrayal, DV victims are often very determined, forthright characters. They have to be to manage to juggle the demands of life in addition to an abusive relationship. The problem is not that they're downtrodden (though this is the eventual result) but that they don't recognise they're being abused. If they did, they would leave.

And maybe they would recognise sexism and/or abuse if they weren't faced with a culture that normalises or even glamorises sexism and milder forms of abuse as well as an extremely subtle and sustained campaign from their partner to skew their acceptance of what is 'normal'.

Despite this, most abused women do leave, and most abused women also tend to make better choices of partner in subsequent relationships (despite more media portrayal that they bounce from one abusive partner to another and therefore must be actively seeking it out, though I'm sure someone will come on here and post that they know someone just like that... ).

And single mothers may indeed be better off emotionally, financially and practically than women in bad relationships, where the abusive/sexist partner can be emotionally draining, financially controlling, and contributing more extra work/problems than helping to ease them. None of that takes away from the fact that single mothers are TWICE as likely as any other parent to be living in poverty. Even those that work. And that doesn't even begin to factor in the emotional/financial and practical hurdles of having to leave your home with your children and find somewhere new to live, since most single mothers do not end up staying in the family home.

Scottishmummy, I agree.

I also get very twitchy with the continual portrayal of women as helpless and hapless victims of men.

We are not. There is more support, both practical and financial, for women leaving relationships than at any time in history. in fact, many more women are actually better off as single parents on benefits.

If you are in a lousy relationship with a shitty bloke, you have three choices. Put up and shut up, try and change him or leave.

The best thing, however, is not to get involved in the first place but I'm sure I'll be accused of being smug again if I suggest that .

the downtrodden life sgb describes of sucking cock and shitwork.well yes if a woman if she finds herself with a lazy git at some point has to reflect how did i get here and what am i going to do about this. naturally if anyone posted the life downtrodden sgb describes,then yes i hope she;d leave.i hope she'd learn to reflect and not replicate the same pattern or chose same man. and when i do read the threads were women describe their lazy remote controll hogging does fuck partner -yes i do think get a grip. and hopefully at some point they will. and some women wittingly or unwittingly have a domestic arrangement were man does nowt domestically,and they present a very traditional representation of so called women's work

Riven, Secret Squirrel, good for you. If you want a medal for making better choices, have one. I'm pleased for you. I wish more women would follow your examples, I really do.

But most don't. Are women really that stupid? Or could it possibly be that something else is going on (like the patriarchy still influencing women's behaviour in subtle ways)?

Do you think people should be punished for not being strong? Do you think the vulnerable deserve ill-treatment for not standing up for themselves? Or do you think, as I do, that while it is always good to empower people and to try to get them to take control of their lives, it is actually far better to STOP people behaving badly in the first place. Then the vulnerable don't NEED to stand up for themselves. We try to get tourists to minimise their vulnerability to mugging, but if the worst happens we don't blame them for it, we blame the perpetrators. When it comes to sexist marriages or violence against women though, different rules apply it seems.

Not withstanding the odd individuals whose lives are so messed up that they actively court dangerous men, do you think abused women generally go round seeking out abusers? Do you think abusive men go round thumping their girlfriends on a first date? They don't come with a sign around their necks. They often wait until a woman is at her most vulnerable (e.g. pregnant and therefore willing to try harder to make the relationship work) and the first episodes of abuse are very subtle and rarely violent. It's insidious.

Likewise, a man with a sense of entitlement when it comes to housework etc quite often isn't revealed as one until their is a shift in the relationship, such as having the first child.

These imbalances are shored up by our culture. Paternity leave is unpaid, meaning it nearly always results in the mother staying at home. Finances are tight because there is only one full wage and a lot of extra costs, so often the man works harder meaning the woman is alone and therefore taking up more of the slack domestically. At the time everyone is sleep deprived and muddling through and things can easily become unequal before anyone realises what's happened.

When you're tired and stressed it is easier to focus on bigger problems rather than insidious problems like housework.

If a woman tries to redress an unequal relationship she is often made to feel petty - it's only over a bit of washing up after all, marriage is for life, it's all about compromise, you need to work at it, etc. If that's still not good enough and she leaves, she then has to face life as a single parent with all that entails (poverty, scapegoating). Some women stay because they know they will face poverty on their own and they see staying with a sexist partner as preferable to seeing their children suffer the difficulties that go with poverty. They sacrifice their own happiness and respect for what they see as better chances for their children. Misguided? Yes. Understandable? Yes. Worthy of scorn? No!

If a woman is unlucky enough to have a violent partner rather than one who is 'just' sexist, leaving is the point at which she is most likely to face stalking and serious violence. 2 women a week are killed by partners and ex partners in this country ? many of them were trying to leave and had just left. The reason many women stay is fear that leaving will get them killed. It's a rational fear. Who are you to say that if they stay they deserve that?

There is many a strong, independent woman who has found herself in these situations. You have to be lucky enough to fall in love with a man who don't behave like this or aware enough to spot the signs. We have a culture that actively discourages this - think of the behaviour presented in rom coms, twilight, etc. It's all presented as passion and romance.

I'ven been there and come out of it. Before taking up with my XP I never understood women who put up with sexist and/or violent partners and also thought they deserved it for putting up with it. I had a humbling experience. Unless you've had it too, you really do not know how you'd react and whether or not you'd be strong enough to leave. And even if you're pretty sure, try some compassion. Everyone is clearly not as wonderful and strong as you are.

Me too

Himalaya - there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with the fact that the majority of SAHP/second earners are mothers. It's only "wrong" if the majority of SAHP/second earners are unhappy about the fact that they are SAHP/second earners.

By the way, I should love to be both SAHP and breadwinner but I'm while I'm working out how to do that I would rather outsource breadwinning than SAHPing

I love how somehow you are lucky or live in an ivory tower because you aren't married to and put up with, a nasty little shit of a husband.
I could have ended up with any number of nasty little shitty men. I chose not to.