AIBU to be depressed that women atre STILL appeasing men for a quiet life?

[Hakluyt]

When I was a young woman a million years it was considered quite normal for women to put their wishes, even in quite trivial things, second to their husbands' and then third once children arrived. Men were often expected to get the best chair, the best bits of food- the household tended to revolve around their needs.

And it sometimes seems to me that not much has changed. The number of threads on here where people talk about doing things "for a quiet life", giving in because "it's not worth the hassle- I can't be doing with the sighing and huffing". Even women putting up with crap and then getting secret revenge instead of talking about things like grown ups!

I just find it so depressing that little seems to have changed. Why are we still doing this?

I was very much in that camp rainbow but pregnancy and then maternity leave has seen a bit of a shift of position. It's interesting but I'm not sure I can put my finger on quite why.

I know why it didn't for me as I not really the wifey type. I am just not that way inclined and it just doesn't interest me

My husband rewrites history over normal household compromises so they somehow become my choice.

Husband : You chose blue walls.

Me : No, I wanted yellow which you hated, you wanted dark purple walls which I hated and after you pouted for a while I suggested green which caused more pouting but no further suggestions on your part, so then I suggested blue (not that I like it that much but just to get the sodding choice made.)

EatShitDerek. I recognise what you are saying. I come from a family of working class matriarchs really, although poor they had more economic clout within the marriage in a way than many middle class women of their era. Having said that it was "Feed the men first" from Granny! My Mum adapted it to "feed the workers" which I say to my revising student sometimes! I try to teach my kids it's good to care for family and home but we all can do it regardless of our sex.

Miggsie's posts have been brilliant on this thread. I think it's not even so much that you do things for a quiet life, but that by rejecting commonly accepted trends it's seen as making a fuss, like going along with it is neutral, but rejecting it is negative. Yet we cling to the idea that going along with something is positive and rejecting is neutral.

The SAHM thing - overall choice is one of

1. Mother is SAHM, father works.
2. Father is SAHD, mother works.
3. Mother and father both work full time, all childcare is paid for, or provided by another family member.
4. Mother works part time, does bulk of childcare, father works full time.
5. Father works part time, does bulk of childcare, mother works full time.
6. Mother and father both work full time, but mother does bulk of childcare (holidays, taking sick days off etc, or flexible working, evening work, opposing shifts, working from home)
7. Mother and father both work full time, but father does bulk of childcare (holidays, taking sick days off etc, or flexible working, evening work, opposing shifts, working from home)
8. Mother and father both work full time and pay/use family for some childcare and share other childcare as equally as possible (split annual leave to cover holidays, sick days, flexible working time, taking an equal amount of work at home days, both work from home full time, etc)
9. Mother and father both work part time in order to share childcare.

10. Neither mother or father work, so no childcare is needed.

However in most families these are the options considered:

1. Mother is SAHM, father works.
2. M works part time, F works full time, M does most childcare.
3. M+F both work full time. M still does most childcare WRT annual leave, flexi time, opposing shifts.
4. M + F both work full time, pay for some childcare and share other childcare as equally as possible.

1. is sometimes considered, but briefly, often because the father earns more money to begin with. Of course, it's becoming more common, but it's still nowhere near the norm.
2. Is really only an option when the family is either lucky enough to have willing, available 24/7 family childcare (usually a grandmother, note, not grandfather) OR well off enough to afford at home childcare such as a nanny or au pair, and still one parent will have to take responsibility for managing such an employee.
3. and 7. are almost never considered at all. I mean, as such that people don't really think of it as an option in the first place. If the father is taking days off to cover childcare requirements then the mother "should" be too. It is much less likely for mothers to consider a job which doesn't allow them to take time off. This is not usually the case the opposite way around.
4. there is often still a bias towards 6.
5. and 10. are unlikely to be financially viable for most families.

Out of 10 possible combinations of childcare, four are usually considered. Three of these four rely heavily on the mother. Hence, the decision is usually not "Who will stay at home?" it's "Will you be a SAHM, WOHM, or part time?"

We do different to those options. We work opposite shifts with no family help or childcare. We have done other other combinations. Dh and I have taken it in turns to do the newborn stage over different babies.

I don't ask him for clean pants but I can't wear trousers to work if he isn't in as I can't iron them right. On days he is away I have to wear dresses.

That would come under 8, then, I reckon. One of you must have to take a day off if children are ill, school holidays etc?

Close, but we don't use family or childcare. We just do all ourselves at present. Dh is at home in day as on opposite shifts for the baby. Other children are at nursery/school. He is working reduced hours of 30 hrs, but that he only as he is home with baby. He will go back to full time soon.

You haven't done an option for man does all day to day childcare, woman does evenings, both work full time. We are in that bracket

Yes I have, see info in brackets. 8 is for equal but both working full time. I was making an assumption that some childcare would be required if both parents work full time, but I stand corrected. Where both parents work full time, opposing shifts but one does more childcare than the other due to shift timing (overnight, evenings, school time, etc) it comes under option 6 or 7.

I'm not meaning to say that no families ever have the other 6 setups, clearly they do, but it's much less common, tends to be thought of as an "out of the box" solution and I think that most people tend to only consider those top 4, perhaps an extra one or two, and the vast majority of families end up fitting into one of the top 4 whether other options are considered or not. Of course, other options may be impractical or unsuited. But there are cultural factors which influence these individual situations.

I'm just glad that no man has ever given in 'for a quiet life'. No, that could never happen.

UncleT- might I suggest you read the thread?

I think the way forward is giving your daughters the assertive skills not to put up with it. If they want careers don't let anyone stop them. I couldn't care less for anyone else's standards.

But it's not as simple as that rainbow.

When there is a child to be cared for in the mix, it isn't as easy as saying 'I won't put up with doing x y and z' if you believe x y z are important in the first place...

Crikey the food thing is a bit off! We get equal amounts and if DH is hungry he will have extra bread and cheese. If he ever tells me what I should eat I tell him where to get off..,

I think that needs to be thrashed out in the pre child years of marriage/relationship. Dh knows I won't do some tasks so either he does them, no-one does them or pay for someone to do them.

I read 'The Woman's Room' by Marilyn French when I was nineteen and have re-read it every eight years or so.

I was enlightened at 19 by it.
Threw it against a wall at 26.
Re-read at 35 and understood it again.
Re-read again a couple of years ago and saw it from another perspective.

Nothing has really changed in the story of women's lives. Just the decades and expectations.

And might I suggest that it's legitimate to respond to the original post....

Well, my original post was about women! Feel free to start your own about men.........

I am interested to know what do you think it is that makes you put men first Hakluyt? It sounds like your upbringing. Is it something you have only found yourself challenging recently?

I agree with those who have said that it works both ways. Sometimes women give in 'for a quiet life' and sometimes men give in 'for a quiet life'. In relationships, one person usually feels more strongly about something than the other - give a little/take a little. I don't think relationships would work at all if no one ever gave an inch.

So to answer the title, I think YABU. Why should it be depressing that women give in sometimes to men but not depressing that men sometimes give in to women? Of course there are more women here saying that they do things for a quiet life - this is MN, there are mostly women here.

bumble- of course you speak logically- and I agree with what you say
Unfortunately life is complicated. We live in a male governed society. Life is not quite equal for the genders and because of that we do have struggles.
ndividuals and families can find ways through that and find rafts that float- hat's off!!

Wider society is set up in a way that favours men. (Hakluyt a wave to you on that one)

Real reading is far more dismal.

Female professors in the uk -14%
Female MPs in the UK- 20%
Female judges in the UK- 25%
Female CEOs in the UK- 14%
Female surgeons in the UK- 9%

full, why is that dismal?

I think one of the issues is that, for some reason, the type of professions that require people to sacrifice large amounts of time with their families are seen as some sort of ideal. Why? What is so great about working 70+ hour weeks? Perhaps the fact that fewer women work in these professions just shows that we put our priorities elsewhere and I don't think that is A Bad Thing. I think we should recognise the value in other ways of life that don't involve such demanding, long houred careers.

It's dismal because these are the people running our society and making massive societal decisions on behalf of us.

I don't think people in those roles are 'running society'. I can appreciate that you want more even representation at that level but if women choose not to put in the hours and don't want to work in the types of careers that require them to be away from their family for long periods of time then I don't think that's going to happen.

"So to answer the title, I think YABU. Why should it be depressing that women give in sometimes to men but not depressing that men sometimes give in to women? Of course there are more women here saying that they do things for a quiet life - this is MN, there are mostly women here."

As I said to a man who made the same point earlier-

"It depends on why you [as a man] do it. If it's because that's the only way you know to be in a relationship, or if you are frightened to assert yourself because you don't have the physical, psychological or financial power to do so, then yes of course that's depressing."