What is the appeal of the 50s housewife thing?

The days hen women didnt talk back - easy for men.

Women had it easy, too, for a price. They could remain children all their lives, relying on a man's money and decision-making.

Thank God its not the 1950s!

" However, relying on a career for security is no less risky than relying on a partner - a person can just as easily lose a job as they can lose a partner."

Sorry, I don't agree with that. As a SAHM you rely on a DH/P who relies on his career. So 2 levels of dependency - 2 potential things to go wrong, yo could lose him or he could be made redundant. the chanches of either of two things happening are higher than the chance of just one (own redundancy if you work).
I'm not saying though that I disagree with the decision to be SAHM.

Yes Jenny absolutely right, well said

Nope TheSmallClanger, I hate it too.
In my head I look like Katherine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story (palazzo pants and white shirt)
Or Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday.(Sharp lean suit and killer shoes).
The whole Doris Day thing does my head in, fashion-wise.

Laurie, am I the only one that really hates the whole New Look fandango, with all its attendant faff and discomfort? I love 40s Utility clothes - clean lines and classic styles, and shapes that came back in the 60s and 80s.

Something bugs me about the way women are always sold fuss and froth as a lovely choice, and a treat, when all it really is is bother.

My gran was a '1950s housewife'.

It was a bloody hard slog; not the silly wafty cup-cakes and present wrapping fantasy lifestyle promoted by Kirstie Allsop and her ilk.

Not only that but back then there weren't the opportunities women have now. If you had a husband who treated you with kindness and respect then you were one of the lucky ones - she wasn't, unfortunately, and there wasn't much redress.

My mother was a 1950s housewife - she couldn't wait to get back to work when we were both at junior school. She was a very efficient house wife and after doing the cleaning/making up the fires/doing the washing with a non automatic machine/preparing a "proper meal"/ the eternal shopping /(queueing in the grocer's/greengrocer's/butcher's pretty well every day she was very bored. She was so much more happy when she went back to part time secretarial work and had enough money of her own to be able to afford tennis club membership and the occasional splurge on nice clothes/shoes.

i genuinely dont recognise your description of a womens lot
i dont do everything domestically etc.im not that fucking stupid
i dont feel put upon

Yes there are societal and structural inequalities but no dont share your gloomy description

sometimes you get what you settle for
if a woman does find shes doing everything she needs to have a moment and think Why?
and then stop doing everything

I think part of the appeal is the lovely clothes (Dior's new look which was softer and more feminine after the masculinised clothing of the war years) and the 'luxury' of time to spend on beautification plus the availability of more products. During the war years there was so little and rationing continued and the effects were felt for a long time.

A lot of this women did themselves - the availability of more fabric meant that you could have full skirts and petticoats - there was a revolution in dress making across all classes.

What isn't appealing about women leading the way - the fashion isn't just about 'fashion' it's about self-determination and choice.

Capitalism is often at women's expense - many examples are cited above - the stress, having to do everything (job, home, children et al), lack of part-time work, the still unremitting drudgery of life, the lack of respect (and remuneration)for jobs that are mostly done by women.

There is a lovely thread on mumsnet at the moment about the tiny joys in life - and that's what women often focus on - we live in a patriarchal capitalist society that fucks us over in many ways - no wonder we take tiny joys where we can get it.

i work hard but ive never slaved

I don't know. I do a lot of slaving.
Still rather that than ironing and "how was your day at the office dear?"

clearly chosen wrong job if slaving...
a career is more autonomous and self directed

I definitely know über high-flying career women who have given it all up for domesticity and invest their all in a KitchenAid, Dualit, Cath Kidstonesque fantasy for a while. Why not? 15 years slaving over a hot keyboard is very wearing.

I don't have any fantasy at all about being a 50's housewife.
I grew up fantasising about being Christine Cagney: The flicked hair, the fur coat,the wisecracks, the gun.
I think the current invasion of chintzy china, sparkly cupcakes and handmade stuff is more of an aesthetic one for most women.
They like the idea of the retro kitchen, and the cute crockery, rather than actually wanting to be in the actual role of dutiful wife mixing hubby's cocktail at 5.15 pm. I hope.

there's nothing to dread about being a working parent at all
plan adequately, look for childcare whilst pg, plan your mat leave and career look into flexible working or changed pattern with plenty of time to plan and prepare a change

to whom is YOU KNOW WHAT? STUFF THE LOT OF YOU I GIVE UP addressed?
employer?
peer?
acquaintances?

give up is a bit of a wet response

Jenny is very very correct. It's women saying, "YOU KNOW WHAT? STUFF THE LOT OF YOU I GIVE UP." I dread having to try to balance a career and children.

Bonsoir I think sometimes though the family may be worse off if you work in the short term, the long term effects of working or not working may outweigh them.

It is a delicate decision to make at times.

It's an economic decision if the value of work is less than the value of staying at home. I agree, however, that the units with which you measure the value of work are not necessarily the same as the units with which you value staying at home!

I dont think it is all about economics though Bonsior Staying at home is also (in the case of higher earners) an emotional decision.

I dont agree with scottishmummys premise which seems to be that if you dont work for a salary you add no value to society. That is not the case, bringing up a family is adding immense value and those SAHM's with means who can and do volunteer are certainly of great value.

The thread is more about why women idealise a 1950's style housewife.
As far as leaving themselves financially exposed, well I would say that no woman expects to be left/her partner or husband to lose their job or die however this happens relatively regularly.

The crux of the matter is - why work if it is going to make your family worse off if you do so? I don't think that posters like SM have much grasp of the economics of higher earners...

Dunno but I love an apron

I dont think this is about economics, its cultural.
I think there is a big difference between being a modern SAHM and being a Betty Draper style housewife.
For most of my SAHM friends, its a family choice and their role is respected within and outside the family. Those who like Kirstie Allsop who go on about womens roles, being wife, acting submissive, are embodying something entirely different, a kind of surrendered wife ideal.
As per my previous post, anyone I know who went down this, rather than the fairer, less pleasing road, has encountered a lot of trouble

DH covers cost of living and I look after young dc, alternatively I could also be a 'wage slave' and engage someone else to look after the children either way there is 'labour' being done by both parents. I don't have a particularly ambitious career plan but I do keep myself engaged with the wider world and local community through politics and volunteering. I am being supported in this by my dh, it is a two way street.

My point was your definition of Capitalism was inaccurate.

Wage slaves as you put it enable housewives to stay at home
Unwaged.not working
Whilst the salaried adult one wage provides for the consumer durables Inc broad and and laptop to mn on

Unless of course it's a socialist laptop,distributed by govt.apparently