Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think trotting around after your husband craps all over feminism

41 replies

Ishouldprobablywax · 26/08/2010 00:21

I hate all this ruddy Sam-cam Sarah brown rubbish.
These women have careers for fucks sake..yet they trot about mugging like idiots to all and sundry.
I hate that were meant to be in an age of equality and yet these women are expected to run around after their darling hubbies to their jobs?!?
My dh is in public eye and I detest being asked why I'm not at his events cheering him on- I don't ask him to follow me round my office and hold my hand while I'm stapling and writing up reports.
Gah!

OP posts:

Valpollicella · 26/08/2010 00:29

Unfortunately they rely on the 'family/married man' vote.

I don't think for a second Sam or Sarah or whoever are silly enough to play along without knowing what its about (NOT that that makes it right), but it does also boost their profile eventually...I think they look at is as maybe a business thing?

skidoodly · 26/08/2010 00:31

YANBU

FallingWithStyle · 26/08/2010 00:32

It's all about prtraying a touchy-feely image, isn't it?
If we had a female PM I imagine her husband would have to be carted out at every available opportunity too.
Old Dennis Thatcher was around but I dont think being seen as a united family front was such a big deal then.

Vallhala · 26/08/2010 00:32

I've often felt this in a smaller way. When I was younger I lived with an up and coming and now very successful accountant and was "expected" to attend company dos with him.

Although I'm pretty confident and could cope I'm not the most sociable person in this world and the whole idea of being "expected" to be the little woman at my ex's side brought out the worst in me and made my skin crawl.

I'm SO glad that my ex is my ex! I just couldn't live the life of the dutiful side-kick to his career, being patronised by his colleagues and bosses for my (as one man put it in my one and only appearance at a cocktail party) "little job".

At the time my ex was just an aspiring accountant in a small but prestigeous company. I was a service manager to the motor trade, no big deal in itself but responsible for a large budget and for hiring and firing a number of mechanics as well as knowledgeable about motor vehicle technology and the vehicle market.

Never again!

Vallhala · 26/08/2010 00:33

Oh bum! Lets try "prestigious" instead, shall we> :o

mrsruffallo · 26/08/2010 00:37

OOh Tell us who your husband is

SolidGoldBrass · 26/08/2010 00:39

Though I disliked Cherie Blair for a variety of reasons, I did admire the way she carried on with her own career rather than just standing vacantly by Tony's side.

I do think it's a feminist issue as well as a heteronormative one - people who are successful often make lousy partners as they are so driven by their careers, yet if they have the self-knowledge and good sense to realise that actually, they would do better concentrating on the work and paying for domestic service, they get slated for being wierd, emotionally immature, sexually dubious or whatever. So any successful but single woman, particularly, is always portrayed as 'Yeah but... she hasn't got a Man'. SUccessful single men get the 'hmph, must be a poof and hiding it' but not quite to the same extent.

CaptainKirksNipples · 26/08/2010 00:42

If her role is seen as a valued contribution and important to the family, doesn't that mean she is not being exploited? I think they got the job that he has as a family effort.

Many women choose to take a supporting stay at home role in a family and I think it is only a problem when it is not valued as important as the husband's paid work.

I'm sure they also have staff so she won't exactly be chained to the kitchen sink.

IMoveTheStars · 26/08/2010 00:47

oh just

skidoodly · 26/08/2010 00:56

"If her role is seen as a valued contribution and important to the family, doesn't that mean she is not being exploited?"

No, it doesn't mean that. When women are at their most oppressed there's always lots of guff about their important contribution in their rightful "family sphere of influence".

Desperatelyseekinginspiration · 26/08/2010 07:42

The men do it to. Bill Clinton, Thatcher and Prince Philip (Prince by the way, not king. Not sure, but if it was the other way round, wouldn't the Kings wife get called Queen and not Princess).

TBH, doesn't really bother me. I think these women do it for support. Nothing wrong with that. I'd support my husband if he needed it and he would me. Afterall, we both benefit from each other's income.

StewieGriffinsMom · 26/08/2010 07:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Callisto · 26/08/2010 08:23

Sam and DC are a team though, arn't they? I get the impression that he really relies on her. He obviously completely adores her. I think that being the spouse of the PM is a bit more than just being the little woman on the sidelines.

TrillianAstra · 26/08/2010 08:27

If she had not been married to the prime minister she might have been Sarah Brown: volunteer extraordinaire, but no-one would have heard of her.

Anyway, where are all the supporters of Miriam (not-Clegg, sorry can't spell it)?

missedith01 · 26/08/2010 08:41

YANBU. Makes me vaguely homocidal when I see partners on the stump, and if there's a pregnant partner and the candidate puts a hand on her belly that's when I actually run amok ...

smellmycheese · 26/08/2010 10:53

If one person in a relationship is successful at something, what on earth is wrong with the other one showing them some public support?

My Dad is very successful in his career, and my Mum goes along with him to events, corporate things etc, not because she is 'oppressed' but because she loves him, she's very proud of him and she supports him doing his job.

It's his job which has brought in the majority of the money, enabling her to do what she loves and become a passionate (but not very well paid) artist. And you know what, a few months ago, when she had her very own art exhibit for the first time, he was by her side, and happy to be 'just' her husband.

It's about being a team, and supporting each other

Bumperlicious · 26/08/2010 11:01

I go and visit my husband in his very important job in The Library but it's because I like to read books while he looks after DD spend time with him.

stubbornhubby · 26/08/2010 11:05

PM is a bit different from most jobs.

But having said that, some PM spouses are pretty low profile - Norma Major, Dennis Thatcher. Sarah Brown, for a while until she started twittering.

What Cameron Brown and Blair did do quiite impressively was to show how far you can shield your children from publisicity if you want to - eg i don't think I had ever seen GB's children unto the last day, when they walked out of #10 together.

Deliaskis · 26/08/2010 11:24

But it's what they choose to do isn't it? Feminism to me is 100% about being able to make a choice about what I do, unaffected by any constraints being forced on me by society based on my gender. I think criticising other women for making the choices that are right for them and their families does feminism (and women) no favours.

If you choose not to (OP) then that's also fine, but it doesn't mean that others should do the same.

I also think that there are lots of examples of spouses (male & female) who have not been high profile, and of husbands who have been high profile in their support of their wives.

I don't think supporting one's spouse in this way is necessarily a sign of being oppressed.

KittenStringFun · 26/08/2010 11:33

Too right smellmycheese!

If Sam Cam et al feel happy to be supportive in their husbands' careers then good on them.

I have yet to be put in the position, as my husband is quite unambitious in that way [bless 'im] but I think its a lovely thing to do to show your support in whatever endeavour your other half finds important. Career or otherwise.

In my case its far more likely I'll be 7 months pregnant, dragged out of bed at 4.30am, carted off to London to drop him off at the start line of the L2B bike ride, then driving back home, picking up his mother and going to Brighton to cheer him on as he crosses the finish line. And yes, this happened its not hypothetical.

Does this make me oppressed? Or is it okay because its a leisure [ha!] activity not his career.

GrendelsMum · 26/08/2010 11:43

Supporting DHs in long-distance bike rides is definitely being oppressed. At least, that's what I'll tell DH next time he asks me to do one.

Miriam Not-Clegg (Gonzales Durantez, I think) seems to get on with her own stuff - I wonder if it's because she's also a politician's daughter?

Scuttlebutter · 26/08/2010 12:02

I think being the spouse of the PM is a very special case, and it's not fair to generalise from their specific circumstances. For a start, the security issues alone make normal life very difficult. In addition, the spouse's work has to be carefully considered in case it could cause a perceived conflict of interest. Add in horrendous press attention and you've got a pretty tricky combination. I don't think the UK has really got its head round the idea of the PM's spouse yet, not the way the USA do the First Lady. I think there is something to be said for the USA system where the role is recognised, funded and supported. We have a typical British muddle, where the spouse is expected to show up at State occasions, answer letters, do some other stuff, yet doesn't get any help from taxpayer for actually making any of that stuff happen. It's not fair to expect the spouse to be rich enough to afford a designer wardrobe. Remember all the sneering at Norma Major - perhaps the poor woman simply couldn't afford to be a clothes horse? Sarah Brown and Sam Cam are also similarly scrutinised, in fact now much worse.

More generally, a couple does what works for them. I go to all the 10K races my DH runs in - that does not make me a Stepford wife, I am immensely proud of him and am happy to be there cheering him on. He likewise was happy to support me doing my MBA, and cheerfully takes me and various crafting friends to craft shows etc . That's what married couples do - show love and respect for the other's activities.

Sakura · 26/08/2010 12:06

Vali, that was an interesting point; about it furthering her career later.

It worked for Hilary didn't it! ALthough I don'T think it does feminism ANY good for women to sleep their way to their positions of power.

RandyRussian · 26/08/2010 12:13

As others on here have said feminism means my right to choose for myself instead of being dictated to by others.

Being expected to do/not do something by an uber-feminist is exactly as bad as being expected to do/not do something by an ultra-chauvinist. Both are equally wrong.

If I expect DH to support me in my endeavours how can I reasonably not support him in his?

Grow up FFS!!

Deliaskis · 26/08/2010 12:32

Scuttlebutter nice post, interesting what you say about the First Lady in the USA as I am always in a bit of a quandry about what I think about that one myself. She (as there has never yet been a he) is funded by the taxpayer to do a 'job' in effect, but this includes being able to have her own 'policy agenda' (although presumably this cannot be in direct conflict with the President) and staff which can be used to lobby congress on those issues. So state-funded lobbying (by somebody who nobody elected), not sure how I feel about that. Although I completely agree that it is much better for all concerned to have a clearly defined role and expectations and to be funded for the 'public service' element of that. I often wonder what would happen if a married couple who were not both members/supporters of the same party would do - if they were to even get elected, which I suppose is unlikely...

Flip

1 2