to feel short changed by feminism?

[ThroughTheRoundWindow]

So here's the thing. Back in the day the young women of the baby boom generation demanded the choice to work or care for their babies. some of them went out to work, and because their families had two incomes they could afford to spend more on their houses and on filling them with consumer goods.

But more families with more money pushed up the price of houses.

Roll on a generation and it is impossible to afford a mortgage on one moderate income. To pay for a house you both need to work. Well that isn't true, we could have either bought a ex-council house on a dodgy estate, or I could have married a much richer man. (But we couldn't bring ourselves to raise a child on an estate and I fell in love with a council employee).

Had a been born a generation earlier my husband's local government salary would have paid for our modest house in an unfashionable suburb and I could (if I had chosen) have given up work to care full time for our family. Instead I have no choice - I have to return to work and leave my baby in daycare.

Without feminism I could have done what comes most naturally to me and been a homemaker. Feminism stole that option from me. Now I have to leave my baby to be raised by a stranger and go out to work in a job I care nothing for and get nothing (except a salary) from.

Ok, a little maudlin from too much beer, but someone explain to me why I am genuinely unreasonable to feel this way?

I looked at our first house (bought in mid 1980's, us in late 20's - small terrace, not affluent area, had to put up c 10% as deposit iirc). Its risen c 4-fold in that time, but more like only doubled if you adjust for inflation in that time.

I am told that salaries have not kept pace with house price increases, that seems to be true in that a graduate entry now is about 3x more than it was for me for roughly the same thing, so house prices as a % of salary are about 1/3rd more.

But, in the mid 80's the mortgage interest rates were about 12-14%, todays are about 4-5%.

So though the same house has gone up 4 fold and the same salary only 3 fold, mortgages rates should now be 1/2 to 1/3rd what we paid so - in theory - that makes housing relatively cheaper now.... so go figure.

Re double incomes, if that is a feminist thing then it must have had an effect but it was before the 80's certainly - everybody then had to have double incomes to afford first time housing too.

Pre-snoozing thought:

If women ran the world, they would have realised the social impact of high house prices and used economic policies to keep them low. This would benefit men and women ultimately and allow both partners to work part-time if they wanted (as HereB suggested) or allow more flexibility in career paths for both men and women in having time at home looking after kids.

the op assumes that all women managed to get a job, making all
(or significant numbers of) households double income ones, thereby increasing mortgage lending & house prices.

If this were true, then there would be a direct correlation.

Passing of equal pay act, within a year or two, increase in mortgages, leading to increase in house prices.

But the facts don't follow that.

In fact, it is the patriarchy who sell this 'dream' of raising your own kids, when it used to be deemed better to let the professionals do it. It was after the war, when there weren't enough jobs, that there was a very strong propaganda campaign to force women out of the workforce and back home, as the govt was embarrassed at returning war heroes having no jobs or houses.

In fact, whether women are encouraged or discouraged to work, depends almost entirely on the economics of the time. We are basically seen as a 'disposable' workforce, who are shamed into working/not working depending on whether there are job surpluses or shortages. Very much like the immigrants who were brought here by the govt when there weren't enough workers, and now get blamed for 'stealing our jobs'.

The biggest factor in the cost of housing is that the UK is a VERY crowded, VERY small piece of land. Look up population density figures and it is scary. If you want the cost of housing to go down, then there needs to be limits on the population. Now, that's an unpopular point, which the politicians won't dare to bring up. Much better to blame the women.

YY to what you said about jobs, angel. I did a project on the radical changes in post-WW2 Britain (keep meaning to webify it at some point). They affected every aspect of life but the "back to the kitchen" campaign was intense; I'm amazed it seems to be so little taught. It was the biggest promotional spend our government had ever undertaken - even bigger than the War Bond campaign and "Your Country Needs You". Same in the USA.

well, if we uncovered the idea that being a SAHM was 'sold' to us cos it benefitted the gov more than the women, we might become all unreasonable & start asking to be allowed out by ourselves. After all, do we want girls learning that they have as much right to work, or shall we just keep them at the kitchen sink, where they're fully disempowered?

Interesting debate, despite the toddler having a tantrum in the corner attempts from one poster to derail the discussion.

I'm sure that dual income households have probably helped to push up house prices, but I for one am immensely grateful to feminism for giving me the choices that it has. Our family has been able to buy a house on the basis of a single income because of feminism, not in spite of it. My DH was unable to work at the time, and so the mortgage is based on my income alone. Had we been born in a different generation, I suspect we'd have been laughed out of the bank.

The OP seems to have vanished, but the fact is, most women have far more choice now - even if that means choosing between going to work to afford a better lifestyle or staying at home and bringing up kids on an estate. You can't have it all, but very few people ever did!

most women have far more choice now

--

Including the choice to delay maternity until such a time that money can be salted away to support an extended absence from earning. Or the choice to prioitise buying cheaper accomdation during the early years to facilitate a one income household, only trading up when the SAHP returns to work later on.

The OP's stolen dream was nicked by not being willing to delay gratification either on the "sort of home I want" front, or the "baby right now" front. Feminism did not steal her options, the 50's did not exist in the way they are romantisied today. Now, as then, we have to cut our coat according the the cloth we have and the OP chose to have a child despite knowing she could not afford to SAH as well as buying the sort of home she prefered.

I did that too, we had a Chanti baby when we could afford it the least, but the woes of juggling our finances, the lack of childcare here for under ones in an uncomfortable contrast to the newly high costs of accomdation due to the relaxing of credit, those issues were of our own making due to timing (,and drinking to the point of forgetting contraception is not an optional if you aren't planning on a family)

In a different age my baby would probably have been taken off me or we would have been reviled by the local community, as I was a divorcee, unmarried to the father of my "bastard" child. Or perhaps I would have remained in a terrible marriage to avoid the stigma of divorce and my baby never have been born at all.

Thank god for feminism.

I'm sorry the OP can't have the sort of house she wants AND be a SAHP when she wants due to the sort of overheads they have chosen to take on at this time. But nobody except she and her husband are responisble for the choice they make to have the house AND the baby now, when they knew full well they could not afford to lose an income and that this would make the OP deeply unhappy at not having the early motherhood experience she would prefer.

I guess blaming feminism, or any other -ism is preferable to ackowleging that their own priorities and choices played the primary role in their current unhappiness with their lot.

you don't have to go back to the fifties to learn how hard life was for everyone, not just sahms, the seventies weren't much fun.

anyway, instead of blaming 'feminism' why didn't the op and her husband organise themselves better with regard to buying a house (or flat) in a good area? they could have lived on one salary for a few years and saved the other to give a good deposit before having children. she should take responsibility for her own actions instead of bemoaning the fact that she now can't have the life she feels she is entitled to.

I have to add I'm quite shocked that the OP and others would apparently happily deprive women of jobs they love and fundamental human rights just for the sake of their own selfish desires. You'd prefer to SAH so you'd inflict that sentence on all womankind? And yes, I do mean 'sentence' because that's how much I personally hate being a SAHM.

YABVU not to mention inaccurate.

There was not greater choice 'back in the day'- there was less choice.

You totally ignore the fact that many mothers in yesteryear would have spent no more time playing with or directly interacting with their kids than happens now. Shopping,cooking, washing, housework took up vastly more time than now. Labour saving devices, supermarkets and Internet shopping have transformed the the domestic role

Also you ignore the fact that many housewives were bored and frustrated and were desperate for recognition beyond the kitchen, and relying on a dose of Valium to see them through the week.

And - this is another biggie which to my mind is often overlooked-what about those hundreds of thousands of men burdened with the sole earner role who were conditioned to work their arsed off all day, come home to dinner on 'the table and had hardly any interaction with their kids? Many fathers were remote figures, there to earn and administer discipline, while mothers only were seen as the caregivers and home makers.

I for one am glad my Children have as strong a relationship with my dh, their dad, as they do with me. If they trip over, or are upset, or need advice they are equally likely to turn to him.

I am also glad I have a profession which is interesting and fulfilling and which I didnt have to leave because I got married/ had kids.

I agree with Annie that the op comes across as simply wanting to be a SAHM and lashing out and erroneously blaming feminism for not getting what she wants. The phrase 'handing children over to strangers to be cared for' is always a giveaway. Working parents don't, you know. We spend a long time finding the best possible care for our children- just as later on, any decent parent will research schools and choose one where your child will be happy and stimulated.

House prices are ludicrous- I think we all agree. But don't wish to turn the clock back to a time when women - and men- has less choice about their roles. The two things are separate issues

agree with fastweb. OP, this isn't about feminism, it's about you choosing to try and have everything on certain terms and letting childcare be the thing you compromise on. As the main wage earner, when I fell pregnant DH and I had some serious thinking to do. We decided that we both wanted me to be a SAHP more than we wanted to own a home. Or run two cars. Or have holidays at all. So we made that choice and we don't regret it. But it does irritate me when far more comfortably off friends who own houses, own cars, travel etc. say I'm "lucky". We all had the same choice to make and I made that one.

my children have as strong a relationship with my dh, their dad, as they do with me

--

Seconding that with knobs on.

Feminism blurred thenharsh contrast of gender roles, which meant we could get creative with childcare.

My DH took some stick for being a part time SAHD for months on end, but that fact that he would even consider the choice and defend it to his family, is down to feminism.

Ournlife is not a conventional, man earns, woman nurtures the hone/kid set up because that was not an affordable option in the early days.

It would be now, and has been affordable for a good number of years, but I would never give up the level of involvement our set up has helped facilitate between DH and DS. What looked like a sucky situation back then actually has a massive silver lining.

It is possible that we would have achieved that anyway, pleanty of people do even with more traditional roles, but we both had distant "important job comes first" fathers, so I think under the circs the set up helped challenge an image of fatherhood that we could have slipped into out of familiarity rather than intent.

Yey for feminism, again.

Also OP, feminismis not just about those of us lucky enough to be born in a time and place where choice is about nice house v ex social housing plus or minus SAHP options.

Feminism is a global issue where the choices are as stark as live or die, live as chattle or recognised as a person in your own right.

And where feminism has improved the lot of women so too it has improved the lot of children.

Where is the nivarna where a strong male stranglehold on choice and autonomy does not negativly impact the poverty, health outomes and survival stats for women AND children ?

Your desire to SAH does not trump a woman's desire not to be shoved to the absolute bottom the the heap on every level, with her children dragged down with her, in places where the reality is that being able to buy a shack is riches beyond all immagination.

Morning thought - the UK house market is structurally different to rest of Europe and they don't seem to have these problems as badly, yet I don't think they have any less or much different Feminism.

I think you're absolutely right fastweb. Of course it's possible in theory for the Children to have equally good and productive relationships with both parents whether one is home full time or not. But I do think that when you have more equal roles, it facilitates it much more easily. Right from when I started back at work, our children were seeing that it could be mum or dad who did 'the nursery drop off. It could be mum or dad who picked up, arrived home first and cooked dinner. And equally when there was a really exciting project coming up at work - it might be mum or dad doing it.
If you have traditional roles with mum at home and dad earning, it's less easy to create opportunities for the children to see those things.

I think the op needs to look at this with a fresh perspective. I also think on a positive note, she should feel more confident that in partnering a man she truly loves and wants to be with, she is laying the groundwork for her Children to be happy and successful far more than if she married a man she felt less comfortable with simply because he's a high earner and enables her to stay at home. I know a number of marriages where the wife has been able to stay at home, but if they aren't particularly happy marriages then you're not doing your children any favours are you? Far better to marry for love and demonstrate to your children that you can both earn a crust when necessary.

bollocks

Italy's house prices shot up after credit became oh so easy to access after decades of 50 percent, 10 year morgages. Must have been about 14 years ago more or less, when the Woolwich suddenly appeared next to my school.

Women working outside the home as the norm predated that turn of events for an awfully long time.

And op- it may have already been said, as this is a long thread- but your op smacks an awful lot of what YOU personally would like, with not much mention of husband and children. Raising Children, and providing a roof, warmth, food etc are a FAMILY responsibility. Maybe you'd have an easier time of it being at home but think about your husband, and also ultimately about the outcomes for the whole family.

FWIW my mother was a SAHM (obviously a different Generation when it was far harder to work anyway for women). I think in terms of her confidence she would have been better off working, and in turn that would probably have been better off for us kids too.

I haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to make a couple of points. I think a lot has gone awfully wrong since the rise of feminism. Women who 'wanted it all' are now struggling to cope with combining career/marriage/children. Many women who WANT to stay at home with their babies are forced to work just to survive. Not so great is it?

In nature, most males and females of a species have clearly defined roles, eg male hunter and gatherer, females look after the young. Think birds, fish, other mammals. And it WORKS.

Perhaps the wanting to be equal has gone to far....? You can fight it as much as you can but in some ways men and women will never be equal. It's women who are designed to carry babies, give birth, breastfeed and do much of the nurturing when children are young. Looking at typical gender roles for a moment, ie man breadwinner, woman homemaker...it's not a case of one being better or more important than the other. They are equally important but just different and one cannot survive without the other.

Dancergirl - I suggest you do read the whole thread in order to educate yourself a bit better.

Very good point about labour-saving stuff ... it must have been backbreaking work.

As well, I think we've got used to the idea we need/deserve more space. What the Victorians saw as 'overcrowding', or even the authorities during the post-war slum clearances in the East End, is I think pretty different from what we think of now. People expect to have bigger homes with more rooms.

(Incidentally, can anyone more knowledgeable than me say if it's actually true about 'most' animals having clearly defined views ... all I can think of is the ones that don't, like both male and female birds building nests, or male and female foxes teaching cubs to hunt, or whatever .... lions don't, I guess.)

YABU. House prices have gone up because there is more demand (we are living longer and there are more single households) than supply (we don?t want to build over the countryside of our small island) & this will always lead to prices increasing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand.

OP, i think you need to consider why you looked at something in your life you don?t like and decided it was the fault of feminism and other women.

You are taking for granted the fundamental human rights our predecessors fought for. I suspect you are projecting your feelings towards yourself and turning them against other women.

YABU you silly moo! What everyone else has said...