To wonder if feminism fucked us over

[splendidisolation]

Looking around at lots of relationships -

Women got the right to work and make money.

In many cases this seems to mean that they now have the right to pay bills, rents and mortgages as well as doing the lions share of cooking, household chores and childcare whilst feeling under intense pressure to engage in hardcore grooming and be sex goddesses.

In the 60s many women didnt work and let their lady gardens grow free - it was all men really knew or wanted.

Fast forward 50 years and they're expected to have careers and strip it all off.

Im muddling loads of points here but does anyone see what I mean?

My DP is pretty good but I still pull more weight than him. The other evening I got home late and started to get up to make dinner. He was like "dont bother yourself making dinner, lets just make sandwiches".

Sandwiches? Bother? I mean, I appreciate the gesture mate but its like...why not just make fucking dinner yourself?

Sorry for this rambling, ranting and general mish mash of thoughts.

Feel free to muse!

You can bet that if men start doing more childcare in western societies that will raise its status, credibility and associated perks more than anything else will.

Women are the childbearing sex and what is the point in pretending otherwise.

However, past childbearing and some months after childbearing for women who breastfeed, men should be equally expected and welcome to parent in the same way a mother is.

You can bet that if men start doing more childcare in western societies that will raise its status, credibility and associated perks more than anything else will.

Yes.

Women do need time off post delivery. Some countries refuse to recognise this, because basically women are treated as second class citizens, and some countries do recognise the value in giving women time off work. However, it is often seen as loss of value in the work place.

You'd hope so but I think in a way what's happening ATM is that being a men are losing status for being SAHP. A bit like the teaching profession - which become more female dominated. Of a lot of women do something - it loses its value.

That was a response to this:

You can bet that if men start doing more childcare in western societies that will raise its status, credibility and associated perks more than anything else will.

@WhatWouldGenghisDo I'm not equating it, I'm saying that I can see how it could easily be seen or become pressure to get back to work.

Sorry AssassinatedBeauty, my post wasn't clear - I was replying to SilverStorm's subsequent point about biological differences

I agree completely that it's rather fashionable to put pressure on women from all political perspectives

Yes Riding, I agree that women who are SAHM can definitely feel as if they are of diminished status in our society and men more so. We are conditioned to believe money = status, often to the detriment of our mental and physical health and that of our children.
Even where people agree that being a long- term SAHM can be considered a feminist choice, you are then challenged about poor modelling of gender roles for your DC!

The thing I find sad is that for my sister who has a highly paid stressful job and whose husband is a SAHD, she still seems to do lots of the things that when I have been a SAHM for a while I made sure got done. All her off time is with her DCs and doing housework while her husband gets free time. And I know that it isn't by choice- of course she wants to spend lots of time with them when she can, but she shouldn't be always doing all the drudge work in the house too. It drives me crazy.

It needs to become more acceptable for men to be SAHDs, that's when things will improve for everyone. If more men felt comfortable taking on that role (and more women felt comfortable with their partners taking that role!) then each couple could decide for themselves whether a) the man worked and the woman stayed at home, b) the woman worked and the man stayed at home or c) both worked part time and spent equal time looking after the kids and house. Whether you pick a, b or c would depend on the personalities of the two people and their respective earning power.

In that way, nobody would be too exhausted from trying to do it all and everyone would have the freedom and choice to have a career or bring up the family.

(There is also an option d where both work full time and employ nanny, cleaner, gardener etc, but that would need both people to be high earners)

Agree conker, we need to reach a tipping point. ATM it's a small enough minority of men doing substantial childcare that people not all people obvs can just put them into a 'not proper men' category in their heads and maintain their prejudices

I am the breadwinner so dh does everything. I set it up.that way when I met him as I am career oriented and wanted to study/get ahead.

Imagine if everyone were to say ‘right, we’ve had enough, we’re going on one income so the other person, man or woman, can concentrate on bringing up kids and looking after the Home’, house prices would be forced down eventually by market forces. Won’t happen though because we’re all in the relentless pursuit of money and material things. We’re our own worst enemies. It’s children who lose out imo. Plenty of money spent on them but not enough time.

Fianceechickie

You seem to be suggesting that working parents don't care enough about their children.

If only one works there's a bigger drive for working more hours to earn more money. Which means one parent hardly at home or parenting.
Hardly great.

Do I? Not sure how you’d read that it to my comments but that’s mumsnet for you!

Fianceechickie having a career is so, so much more than earning money and having material stuff for many people. It's important to me for reasons of personal development and mental stimulation. I'm not that bothered about stuff. I earn more than I know what to do with (not a ridiculous amount - I'm just not a spender).
My children aren't deprived - the time we spend with them is quality time and it's good for them to have happy, fulfilled parents.

This would mean that all couples must consist of a partner who wants to be full time SAHP and one partner who is happy to be the the sole breadwinner (and do minor parenting). Wouldn't work for me and DH, we find it's much safer to have 2 incomes in case of a job loss or health problems. And both of us like to see the kids every now and then.

Why is having one parent at home seen as the ideal? That just perpetuates one 'Maine parent' and one person on working all the hours god sends.

Surely the ideal is two equal parents who do an equal amount of house work and child related 'stuff' (fun stuff and the admin) working in roles with a degree of flexibility (or with access to fantastic flexible childcare), who are both happy and fulfilled.

Why should one person have to stop work - male or female?

The focus should be on changing the culture in jobs to be able to say "no actually I can't do that meeting I pick my kids up from nursery" and it's not just the mothers who do that whilst the amazing men get to not bother with that.

One person earning all the money and the other one doing all the domestic tasks. I don't think that's a great role model for children Short term it might be convenient but it isn't a way of life I wanted my children to think of as the norm But neither is two people working full time and the woman doing all the domestic tasks.

As someone who has been a feminist since dinosaurs roamed the earth, I do think that one area where feminism did miss a trick was childcare. It was always an add on "Oh, yes, and high quality full time child care for anyone that wants it" just after the provision of free speculums and mirrors so women could look at their own cervixes.

Today 09:19 KatharinaRosalie

'This would mean that all couples must consist of a partner who wants to be full time SAHP and one partner who is happy to be the the sole breadwinner (and do minor parenting).'

Exactly. And - shock horror- many of us don't want that.

No doubt there are some couples who partner up who are totally happy with polarised roles- man is career driven, totally happy to taks the pressure of sole breadwinner, and the woman is completely happy to give up her career and do all the childcare and domestic stuff. And that's fine when it suits. But realistically, given that many people partner someone of similar level of education, ability etc, it's not surprising that very many of us don't want to be pigeonholed into one role. I have always been as capable of earning, and progressing in my career as my dh. He has always been as capable at changing a nappy, cooking a meal, playing with the kids etc as I am. Therefore it's quite logical that we've both wanted a good balance in our lives rather than splitting into earner and carer

Sometimes on MN you see women saying their dh earns 10 x more than they do; therefore they give up work by default... but I would imagine this scenario is increasingly rare because the days of big shot high earner bloke partnering a woman in a menial low paid job seem to be way behind us. Obviously there will be exceptions, but as someone said upthread, you're more likely to find people in roles such as doctor, lawyer, partnering another professional of similar standing.

Conversely, for couples in lower paid 'jobs' rather than careers, where work is simply to pay the bills rather than for other aspects such as mental stimulation, then I'd have thought it's equally important to try to have a work/life balance. If dh and I just had 'jobs' to pay the bills I certainly wouldn't want to be sole earner (probably working overtime to make ends meet) while my dh stayed at home, so I wouldn't expect him to do that either.

I think the talk of feminism is a distraction from the central point, that as individuals we create the partnership we want. If a woman continues to do more than her share of the domestic load as well as earning, she should ask herself why.

Do I? Not sure how you’d read that it to my comments but that’s mumsnet for you!

It's the logical consequence of what you've said.
Children can be happy and successfully raised by two working parents, they don't need one at home.

Children can be happy and successful with one parent in their home and who is also working.

I think the talk of feminism is a distraction from the central point, that as individuals we create the partnership we want

Well economics factor.