I consider myself a feminist...and a housewife.

i wholeheartedly agree. pressure to 'work' and the total devaluing of the role of full time mother are about maximising the available workforce in order to decrease wages and job security (capitalism not feminism). we need a serious movement to challenge this hijacking of feminist ideology for purely mercenary purposes.

"...and leave all the work to their female partner, who is probably enabling them to do so under some mistaken perception of power/control. This is not feminism." Quite so, this is not feminism - but I find it so disheartening that even amongst my much younger friends and acquaintances (most of whom have jobs and no children), a generation, one would hope, of women who should have seen some progress, and men one would have hoped would be a little more enlightened than their fathers (and probably think they are), where she still does the lion's share of the domestic work and he 'never sees a job wants doing', as they used to say.

"enabling them to do so" doesn't come into it....(is there a 'rolls eyes' smiley?)

Yes exactly, Bonsoir.
It can also be the case for a SAHM. There are women I know who stay at home to look after the kids and don't "allow" the man to participate in childcare and housework because they want their own queendom within the home. I don't think this is feminism either. I get angry with a friend of mine, whose husband works part-time, when she complains that she doesn't get an hour to herself because of the baby. He works part time I want to shout at her! Why isn't he doing half the childcare??!

"My mother was the main breadwinner in the house and she was married to a neanderthal. All that happened was she bore "the double burden"- never got time with us, never had time to socialise. She had her own money- yes- but not much else."

Sakura - your example, and your point, are both excellent - and tragic. I think far too many women labour under the illusion that they are "feminists" when in fact they are just married to men who make a very unequal contribution to their relationship - either because they are Neanderthals, or just very weak men - and leave all the work to their female partner, who is probably enabling them to do so under some mistaken perception of power/control. This is not feminism.

kneedeep, I agree with your general point except this "To not be reliant on a neanderthal, a woman has to earn money"
I disagree with this.

My mother was the main breadwinner in the house and she was married to a neanderthal. All that happened was she bore "the double burden"- never got time with us, never had time to socialise. She had her own money- yes- but not much else.

I'm a SAHM but H actually "sees" dirt more than I do and therefore tends to tidy more than me. I consider myself a bit of boho (any excuse) and don't really notice mess.
He appreciates that raising kids is bloody hard work, that there's no respite when they're young,so there's no reason for the primary carer to be responsible for the domestic side of things.

With the time and energy that is saved by not bearing the full burden of housework I am able to study and write and translate, keep my hand in for when I return to the workforce.
It is a much fairer and more "feminist" relationship than the one my mother had, even though at first glance it appears to be the opposite.

It doesn't solve the other feminist issues that Xenia is talking about, but within a relationship there is no reason why a SAHM should be considered more downtrodden than a WOHM. As Molesworth said, this is not 1950. There's a completely different social and cultural backdrop, all thanks to the gains of feminism. I think my own mother did think that a woman had to work her fingers to the bone to be considered equal to men.

So, true. No one really ever did say I shouldn't be back to work after 2 weeks. Just like wanting someone to tell me off for breastfeeding in public so I could use my prepared spiel, it never happened but women can certainly criticise other women for being back at work. If you know your choices are right for you then it usually doesn't bother people. it's the same with women at home - if they know it's all fine then they don't really feel irked by someone saying it's better if they had maintained their career path - if they're a bit unhappy with their decision or unsure then it puts them out a bit.

However we're all the better for being challenged. We don't want a cosy pat each other on the back club. Would be terribly dull.

(Woman as temptress always in the wrong has a long history)

I meant statutory maternity leave..

Germaine Greer said that the word "housewife" ought to be seen as offensive as "nigger". I agree. One does not marry a house...

I've found that upon each return to work after statutory leave, its the women who have sneered that I haven't taken extra (unpaid) leave. I believe that men aren't doing women down, women are. I agree with Xenia that women can sabotage each others' chances - and their own. This debate comes up again and again on MN, "I'm not a feminist but...".
Every right thinking individual is a feminist surely?

Yes,I've always liked the standard interpretation of Eve tempting Adam,and the fall being her fault - could he not just have said no??!Not a good excuse really - "well,I knew it was wrong but she asked me to do it"...

"Feminists should be shouting to give men that freedom." I agree.

It's not naive because plenty of owmen come into their own in their 40s and 50s setting up and running businesses, and indeed more women under 40 in the Uk are millionaires than men but you can get side tracked in many careers because of ageism. I've started taking dates off stuff although it is not going to work if anybody trawls on line about me.

I've known people who earn a lot more than their husband who reduce the family income by 2/3 by choosing to stay home but not many men who give up £100k a year to mind the babies whilst the wife earns £20k. Feminists should be shouting to give men that freedom.

Anyway the recession will continue to do its good work on gender issues. I just worry that women get complacent and think it doesn't matter if I was trained for X years and then give it up. It does affect people's views of the point in investing in women but as people say above most women who give up full time work do carry on part time and if you're the best in your field in the UK you will always be sought out so the best way to compete is just be good.

It's all fairly academic for most people now and alawys. They work to eat. They even said so in biblical times - because woman tempted man (misogynist religions will always have it that way round) man labours and women suffer.....

"16 Unto the woman he said,

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said,

Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,
and hast eaten of the tree,
of which I commanded thee, saying,
Thou shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; Heb. 6.8

and thou shalt eat the herb of the field:
19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,

till thou return unto the ground;
for out of it wast thou taken:
for dust thou art,and unto dust shalt thou return.
20 ¶ And Adam called his wife's name Eve; 3 because she was the mother of all living."

I take your point,Xenia,but I don't think that saying that women should adopt working patterns that do not suit them,or their families for the sake of "womenkind" is the solution.I'm not sure what the solution is though...

I absolutely do not think women should be at home as guardians of all things domestic(yuck!)
I do think in an ideal world it should be possible to take a few years out of your career and still have a career - I think very few jobs are such that it is vital to have been doing them full time for your entire working life.I realise this is probably a naive view of how the world works though, and that for some people the choice is stay at work full time or fail to achieve career goals that are important to them.(I'd apply this to men and women equally)

I think the choice should be left to the individual,and that both men and women should have the choice to work flexibly if that is what they want.

I'd like to add that not all couples decide who will stay home on the basis of income - we didn't and I have several friends in similiar positions to us - there are other issues involved.

Poge, just now, when women are only just starting to make work gains, to get into more senior roles, they need to be very careful or they will lose those gains. That's the political issue. If we had 50% of flexible working requests from men it would not be so difficult. But female representation in many areas is about 10% once you get high up because many of those women marry richer men and have babies.

So those who think staying home even for a few years is fine would you mind if 100% of women did that? Don't you think that would mean fewer women doing well in many jobs? or perhaps ify ou think woman at home as guardian of all things domestic, the best place for women in the kitchen etc is the ideal we as feminists should be after because male capitalistic work is a nasty thing we want the world rid of?

Education enables women to negotiate their way through life to their advantage, whatever they choose to do. Denying women education on the grounds that they are going to become SAHMs would indeed put women in a position of (huge) weakness versus men. An educated SAHM with no income of her own can have a fair and equal relationship because she is able to contribute to the relationship and family and defend her own interests when doing so.

In what way is it better being a wage slave than a slave to the house/kids though? I also don't get why some people think it's ok to stay home for a man but not for a woman? Either it is work or it is not.

I love SAH, it's not boring at all, I get to do loads and feel a sense of freedom. I do study and volunteer for abit of interest and for my own security and in case i decide I want to work.

"Why not get them out of school at that age making sure they've majored on cookery and sewing at school but have their basic education too than wasting time and resources when they will just spend their lives cleaning up after men?"

Personally I think education is valuable for it's own sake, - but if this a discussion about what women now are choosing to do,and what they want for their daughters,then really not many of us are choosing no paid work at all,ever,are we?

I think I may be having a different discussion from the one you are having,Xenia.
I cannot imagine wanting to be a full time housewife for a lifetime - I'm not advocating that,but I do think time at home is a valid choice for some people,for at least part of their lives.Do you feel any model other than every adult in full time paid work is not on,or is it the full time housewife bit you object to,or somewhere in between?

I think Xenia's vision of home life is coloured by the fact that she was married and had children so very young. To be quite honest, I don't think I would have had many skills for occupying myself and bringing up my children, let alone negotiating my relationship in peace and harmony and constant progress, at a mere 22! Experience of life brings those skills.

It helps keeps women down and for men to see that women stay home and serve them whilst men work. It's never going to be a feminist choice.

"So Xenia, you're not a socialist. So it's OK for people with more money to exploit people with less money (due to where in the world they happen to be borne, or less resources in their own families, or less intelligence) in order to get them to do a job that they don't want to do themselves (look after their kids) for a lot less money than they can earn themselves.

But it's not OK for men to exploit women (in exactly the way described above)???"

Yes, because feminism is about achieving fair opportunities between men and women and within society as a whole. Also I don't regard it as exploitation for someone to pay someone else to do something for them but I do think it damages women if it is mostly women who do chores and stay home.

Yes, educating women is a great thing to do but what level do they really need to be educated up to? Surely if their life will be wielding the hoover and helping with homework they don't need much more than GCSEs themselves. Why not get them out of school at that age making sure they've majored onc ookery and sewing at school but have their basic education too than wasting time and resources when they will just spend their lives cleaning up after men?

Anyway things are getting better. This is a mancession. Men are losing jobs. Women are gaining them. Men are having to learn to take charge more of all things domestic. Couples aren't generally picking the housewife model. It's all going great. However we must never sit on our laurels.

But Xenia,just because you find full time childcare boring doesn't mean everyone will.And you also assume that work is always interesting and fun(or at least this is how your posts come over)
I have a job which I enjoy,mostly, but I have had some excruciatingly boring days at work.Thinking back I'm not sure I was ever bored when I was at home with the children when they were little,because childcare,unlike my particular job,was always changing.
(Tired and frustrated,yes - but not bored) Someone has to look after children,why should it be so awful if one of their parents wants to do it?
Most women are not making a career choice between brain surgery and full time house and childcare,and it is simplistic to discuss this as if they are.
"The reality is women who rely on male earnings later earn less often for the next 40 years, not always but plenty do". I have chosen to trade off lifetime earnings against spending part of my life at home with my children - why is that not a valid choice?

So Xenia, you're not a socialist. So it's OK for people with more money to exploit people with less money (due to where in the world they happen to be borne, or less resources in their own families, or less intelligence) in order to get them to do a job that they don't want to do themselves (look after their kids) for a lot less money than they can earn themselves.

But it's not OK for men to exploit women (in exactly the way described above)???

With no intention to make a personal attack, it does seem to me that your feminism is about what suits you, not what suits all women.

Both parents have children. It is not anti male to work nor anti female.

I'm certainly not a socialist, no.

The reality is women who rely on male earnings later earn less often for the next 40 years, not always but plenty do.

"Xenia, is it just because men don't value the "boring" work women do at home that you don't?"

Absolutely not. I've spent 25 years bringing up 5 childre. I will probably have cleaned more loos than any housewife on this thread, probably had more hour on hour of child care too if you average 5 chilren over 25 years compared to full time mother for 3 or 4. So I do know what the job entails and I don't need a man to tell me it's quite boring to change nappies 10 times a day. LIke all parents, male and female, I adore being with the children within reason, Love to hold a baby close, like breastfeeding but that doesn't mean I have to regard the domestic tasks as interesting.

I want all mumsnetters to call themselves feminists and for the word to be reclaimed from the dirty word it has become but what it in essence stands for of equality under the law and fairness at home and most housewife sets up are not really like that.

(If I said being at home wasn't hard then I didn't mean to imply that but I wouldn't call it real work either - and for some who aren't very good at their housecleaning etc they neglect the task - some are good at it and do it well and some aren't).

good point molesworth!

sorry, i misused the word reactionary. I meant if it's about responding to this man's world.