What is the appeal of the 50s housewife thing?

Amen! Agree with a lot of what's been said. Read Revolutionary Road (Richard Yates) for a great portrayal of a less than perfect 50's (60's?) household....

Because it is a fantasy and we are all knackered. I would imagine all of us would like more time with our children as well.

In the holidays particularly the summer ones I get to live my 1950s fantasises, and I recognise it as such. Dp works and I run the home. Our house is immaculate, I cook proper meals, I see, I play with dd, I gather fruit to make jam etc. We are so much happier. Of course I can only afford to buy the food, live somewhere that has a big kitchen and a room for sewing and craft etc becaue for most of the year I am working in excess of 15 hours a day.

Many of us have a shit work life balance, our children feel sidelined and we are too knackered for sex. No wonder we indulge ourselves in these silly fantasies.

that happened to me HoleyGhost. I thought, anyone can do it, any old thicko can look after a baby, why can't I do it and thrive..? And then I realised I was wrong. Women aren't thick, at all. They're as clever as hell, that is how they survive motherhood with everything working against them! I admire all mothers so much now!! Shame society doesn'T share my view

as for the original question, perhaps it's got something to do with everyone imagining they would have been middle class in the fifties and therefore would neeever have had to work in the factories alongside the masses of working class women who did so?

just throwing ideas around, really

I think it was 'lack of respect for women's work' that made me believe that caring for one baby should not take so much of my energy and time, and that I should easily be able to also manage the cooking, ironing, cleaning etc. I had the idea that my baby being more demanding than most was down to my failings as a mother, rather than simple bad luck. I don't think it is just me, motherhood comes as a massive shock to so many of us, because the challenges tend to be downplayed.

I agree with your last paragraph. It is the airplane analogy again. In the event of a crash, you fit your own oxygen mask first. Then you are in a position to help your children and other passengers.

A selfless, worn out shell of a woman, is not in a position to maintain strong relationships, and that includes bonds with her dc.

Assuming that you can be up all night and then cook meals from scratch all day wasn't due to a 'lack of respect for women's work', surely? It was just bad time-management.

We're only 'knackered' when we stop putting ourselves first. When we put ourselves in first place as individuals, regardless of whether we are mothers, employees, partners etc, then the balance of life has us at the centre, top-slot, and others fitting in around us. When women place themselves in second, third or fourth place to partners, children, employers etc., they can't be surprised if they get taken for granted, exploited and feel that something's not right. There are no prizes for selflessness .... a big myth, very popular in the '50's housewife' fantasy world, that we still struggle to get past. Anyone reading that last paragraph and thinking 'how selfish'... that's exactly what I mean.

"We're knackered...." that is so true, and looking knackered is now seen as letting yourself go, rather than an indication that being up five times in the night with a sick child, running a household, working long hours, fulfilling social obligations etc is rather a strain.

Looking back, one of the things that made my colicky non-sleeping DD's first year so difficult was my determination to continue cooking everything from scratch. When DD did nap, I was busy catching up on things. I was too exhausted and strung out to see objectively that I needed to let things go. I've wondered where exactly I got the ingrained notion that I needed to be a '50's housewife' along with everything else. It must have been a combination of influences...

It all comes down to a lack of respect for anything seen as women's work. Most first time parents seem to assume they'll easily take it all in their stride.

A lot didn't 'say goodbye' to their work post-war, they were told that once the men came back or they got married, they were expected to quit their job. I know one woman, now in her eighties, that was forced to give up her degree-course in veterinary studies just because she wanted to get married. I think we get a little side-tracked with the 'having it all' stereotype. The most fundamental thing a lot of women didn't have, then gained briefly and lost again was independence.

Working-class women always worked out of necessity and their independence was restricted mostly by their relative poverty, lack of education and social status. Middle-class women were rendered dependent for different reasons. What that '50's Housewife' image was doing - via adverts, magazines and other propaganda - was to reinforce the message that 'good women' should be quite happy to be dependent, & have no other ambitions than their menfolk, children and a sparkling home.

I worry, tbh, that we are sliding back in this hankering for the past by thinking it was so much easier. It's not adverts of smiling women in fussy skirts, fondling washing machines saying 'this will give me so much more time to bake cakes for my husband' any more. It's the more subtle 'it's good to be dependent on men' culture promoted by WAGs, Allsopp, et al that bothers me.

'Having said that I'm sure many were happy to say cheerio to filthy factories, lousy pay etc'

My granny was one of those - she worked in a factory in the war and hated it because the other girls were 'rough' and used to swear.
She was working class herself but from the countryside and moved to London when she met my grandad.

The 50's thing was a way of selling domesticity back to women who'd got rather too used to a degree of independence during the war. Having said that I'm sure many were happy to say cheerio to filthy factories, lousy pay etc. As another poster said - housewifery held status.

I sometimes think that there is a concerted effort to sell this fluffy fantasy of domesticity back to women again for similar reasons. The emancipation of women has created some unintended and not always desirable consequences. Admitting that doesn't equate to saying it shouldn't have happened. However, the fact is that a lot of women who are hoovering at 10pm and about to run out of clean clothes should be forgiven for wondering if previous social models might have been less exhausting.

It's bollocks. An idealised fantasy of what in reality was the preserve of the middle classes for a couple of decades after WWII. And even then it was only cooking sherry and valium that got them through it.

My mother worked, both my grandmothers worked as did my aunts and great aunts. Nothing remarkable about that at all if you were working class.

Jenny - that is VERY true!

We're knackered. A couple of generations of women have come of age trying to "have it all", with varying degrees of success, and most of us are exhausted by it. We are told to be successful career women, good mums and partners, devoted friends, maintain a social life, a beautiful home, a scintillating sex life, an interest in current affairs, an attractive, youthful appearance, and without much help - really, the traditional "wifely duties" haven't gone away and are still, in most cases, largely performed by women, and we've added to them the career pressure only felt by men in the 1950s ideal.

Small wonder that even knowing the reality was very different, the fantasy has a certain appeal, when it's 10pm and you are just finally sitting down after a busy day at work, followed by a mad dash to pick the kids up, whizz round the supermarket because there's nothing in for dinner, feed everyone, bath and bed the littlest DCs, help the older ones with their homework, shout at DH to load the dishwasher and take the bin out, because frankly thats the least he could do, stick a load of washing on because you actually are about to run out of clean knickers, should probably run the Hoover round too because god knows when it was last done, but first the kids toys need to be picked up off the floor, and then finally, finally, you can collapse - but best check the Blackberry first, because something's bound to have kicked off at work after you left (just) in time to pick the kids up....

Yes, I can understand the appeal of the fantasy!

'Same mistaken appeal as pirates'

I like that, v good.
The pirate thing is really weird.

I agree with Cogito. The media sells us so many different lifestyles that we aspire to, be that 50s housewife, Sex in the City, self-sufficiency in the countryside, sell your house and move to rural France for a better standard of living etc etc.

It is mostly bollocks. I found it VERY hard to move to another country (the dream of many) - and I live in one where there are loads of expats and Mnetters! I can live with this. It took lots of effort - but I built a life.

Our "dream" though is to retire somewhere in France with a big garden and grow veg and keep chickens etc..... It has really started to dawn on me recently what this would MEAN though and I have learnt enough to know that the "dream" isn't enough.

Same mistaken appeal as pirates. Not the murdering, raping, pillaging criminals of the high seas they actually were/are... but the flamboyant, wisecracking, cutlass-swishing 'Disney Pixar' image they've since acquired.

Middle-class 50's housewives were often very miserable people resorting to alcohol or tranquilisers just to make it through the day. No matter how lovely your home or how many staff you've got to clean, cook and disappear the kids, if you have no other choice, it's just a pretty cage. It was because it was such an oppressive way to live that feminism took off in the first place. Allsopp and her ilk should step away from the Enid Blyton books and be grateful they don't actually have to live like that.

I dislike them because they sell the myth that women should be able to do all this while obviously being rich enough to employ staff themselves.
I actually prefer my multi-millionaires to outsource the drudgery to others rather than prance around a friggin' kitchen giving a bj to a spoon.

I know it's an act to make money (or at least I think it to be an act), nevertheless, the whole Kirstie Allsopp/Nigella Lawson thing does my head in. Partly because I don't know why any multi-millionaire would want to spend time in a kitchen friggin' cooking! . Eat out every night for Chrissake and boost the economy!
I think some women want this as it takes the drudgery of work out of their lives, that said, looking after young children and housework is work.
The reason the divorce rate has shot up is, I think, twofold:
1, Women earn money-why should they put up with a rubbish relationship? There is no longer the fear of not being able to cope alone.

2, Less stigma about divorce.

Only Kirstie Allsop can manage this, and only then because she has staff to do the home cooking, childcare, housekeeping etc.

....Yes, and to finish her patchwork quilt for her if she can't be bothered!

Harecare the event of a split is only one way that having a sole earner is a risky choice - redundancy and ill health are not exactly rare.

There are plenty of bright, intelligent, creative and ambitious people on here who have realised that choosing to be a SAHP means forgoing a career full stop, not just for the time it takes to bring up a family.

Agree with feminists wife. my grandparents were similar (6 kids), my gran - well, her and her daughters - did all the domestic work in addition to her evening cleaning job, and was bitter that during the war (and pre marriage and children) she'd had a challenging job in london that of course she wasn't allowed to keep when the men returned.

People used to take it for granted that homes and kids take looking after, food needed cooking, etc, whereas now you get the feeling you are meant to cram all those things in between your glittering social life and brilliant career and if you admit to spending more time on them than the minimum necessary you are seen by some as a bit of a saddo.

Yet genuinely spending minimal time (buying processed food or take aways, using laundry services etc) is also seen as shameful. You are still expected to do the drudgery, while pretending to take it in your stride.

Only Kirstie Allsop can manage this, and only then because she has staff to do the home cooking, childcare, housekeeping etc.

Make do and mend is appealing for the creativity and economy.
Craft as a hobby is more fun than wasting hours on the internet (must get back to my sewing machine!)
Putting a husband first is what a good wife should do, just as putting the wife first is what a good husband should do.
Allowing one person to be the sole earner while the other does household chores and childcare is a risky choice in the event of a split, but living your life assuming you're going to split up is no way to live.
Nowadays few parents have the choice of not having to earn outside of the home, if you want to stand by your principles and bring up your children as the sole carer you have to either be super rich, super poor or be seen as lazy by those who do not value the role of household manager/primary caregiver.
It is perfectly possible to be bright, intelligent, creative and ambitious and yet still opt to forgo a career for the time it takes to bring up a family.

The thing is though, the stereotype is a very middle class one. In most working class families both parents went out to work, very much like today. My grandad used to leave for work at 5am finish his first job at 3pm and go straight to his second job until 7pm. Then when he got home my nan would go out to her job until midnight (she was a cleaner). My grandad then did dinner dishes and putting kids to bed etc before going to bed early himself. They hardly ever saw each other, how they managed to have 7 kids I don't know.

So it's the media bombarding us with this unrealistic stereotype (as BeerTricksP0tter said up thread). The reality was a lot different for real people.

I think it's partly (along with other stuff mentioned above) the fact that being a SAHM had a status in itself and was respected as a useful role. Whereas now SAHMs get slagged off all the time for being parasites, yummy mummies, being lazy () etc. People used to take it for granted that homes and kids take looking after, food needed cooking, etc, whereas now you get the feeling you are meant to cram all those things in between your glittering social life and brilliant career and if you admit to spending more time on them than the minimum necessary you are seen by some as a bit of a saddo. (There was a thread a while back where someone insisted that the family's laundry only took her 5 minutes.) I think a lot of the women who go in a big way for the fifties stuff are partly doing it as a way of saying 'fuck you, I am a SAHM and I'm not ashamed of it.'

Plus the dresses are good if you are an hourglass, too....