To ask if you are a 'housewife' with no children?

[crochetmonkey74]

I know the term housewife is outdated so first off apologies.
I've always wondered about this , I had a great aunt and uncle who never had children but she never worked. I've always been interested in how this would be (been a bit of a fantasy of mine)
Do any of you have this life ? What is it like?

@Monopolyiscrap

Lots of women going on about how much their husband appreciates everything they do for them as a housewife.

I think it's just a thought to counter comments about lazy women taking advantage of the poor hard working men. Some couples work in tandem to do what is best for their own particular relationship. My husband works full time and I'm part time. It works for us and we don't care what anyone thinks. And I fully support other families with their choices.

Have not rtft, but I can’t see what all the fuss is about? Nobody can assume to comment on anyone else’s marriage set-up. Just because people may organise themselves differently to you, doesn’t mean they are wrong. In my experience, when people need to stereotype or criticise others, it always comes from a place of insecurity, whether they are able to admit this to themselves or not. Secure people have no need to attempt to put anyone else down.

@CheltenhamLady

You asked for my POV on this. I expressed my opinion earlier - that women who stay home to support men often become facilitators and enablers to men. I’m interested in male power and the repercussions of that. I am always surprised how we continue to hand over so much power to men.

This setup of what is normally women at home with men going to work impacts on the workplace - I work with lots of enabled men and their facilitation makes it difficult for women to get ahead but it also colours their world view. It just does when you have someone at home who cleans your sheets for you and where your important job has primacy.

Some earlier posters said women who don’t work shouldn’t have an obligation to try to change the workplace which I thought was strange. That’s a bit like not caring about the environment just because you’re not an outdoorsy person. Just because you don’t use or work within an ecosystem doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter or that what you do has an impact on that ecosystem.

Beyond the thing of enabling men, I can also say that I find the transactional nature of one person bringing in money and the other serving and supporting deeply uncomfortable - as did 1st and 2nd wave feminists. But many women don’t see it that way, don’t mind or, as many people, will gravitate to an easy life.

I guess it’s just me. I can’t imagine thinking I was so special that as a grown adult I would have someone cover all my costs – pay for all my clothing, accommodation, and all my living costs plus to let me do hobbies – just because ‘they loved me’ or I had an agreement with them to keep the house going. The pretty girls at school had that sort of mentality – that they were owed something out of a relationship – but I found it a strange attitude.

I think it’s fair to question other’s life choices because the way we live has wider implications. Mumsnet’s shouts of ‘it's none of your business’ and ‘don’t criticise others choices’ is very disingenuous on a website that is literally about presenting varied perspectives.

@CheltenhamLady you asked why I wouldn’t support a ‘valid life choice’ ; what is a ‘valid’ life choice and what makes it valid?

@Waferbiscuit

Thank you, that was an interesting and considered response.

However, you didn't address my questions about life choices as a whole, what makes a woman, or a man who, for their own reasons chooses not to work, different in terms of impact (societal, environmental et al) from those who choose to work part-time, be a househusband, carer etc?

Most people, make life choices based on their personal circumstances. I am sure you are no different in that respect. If you were suddenly faced with the need to care for a parent/spouse you would make a choice that suited you and your family and any perceived knock-on effect to the workplace/feminism would not be a factor.

That is a valid life choice. For clarity, a valid life choice is one that harms no one directly and suits the individual. The abstract notion of any given choice, making, or having, a negative impact on society is not factored into the everyday decisions of the majority of people. All individual choices have an impact, but all of us largely ignore them for personal gain/satisfaction/enjoyment or comfort.

We get pregnant,
We fly,
We drive cars,
We eat meat,
We undertake dangerous sports,
We take jobs in industries that pollute,
We take jobs in countries that have poor human rights records,
We take jobs in areas that have ingrained cultures of ageism, sexism, racism, for the high salaries paid.
We are highly paid for work which is arguably not vital to society in the way that some jobs are.

Just because those commodities are available doesn't mean you should partake. However, let him who is without sin cast the first stone, comes to mind here.

I could go on, but I am sure you get the gist?

Therefore, anyone who chooses not to work is making as valid a life choice as those who choose any of the above.

Life is transactional by design, the truth is that most people work in partnership and to their strengths, and to what suits their family unit.

Is that not valid?

As human beings, we are all 'guilty' of enabling due to our choices.

I have no idea of your personal situation, but I am willing to bet that you undertake/engage in or are party to at least one, if not more of the categories mentioned above. I know I do.

Should we be censured for that?

Are your choices really more valid than the person who chooses not to work? In whose estimation? Who is the arbiter?

The bottom line is that we have free will, and of course, we should all do what we can to stand against injustice in all its forms, but denigrating those who have the opportunity and resources to leave jobs open for others, is not a hill to die on.

Each to their own.

"They also have cleaners and gardeners. What they do is shop, coffee, lunch, plan holidays, walk the dog. "

They're ladies of leisure not housewives then.

@thepeopleversuswork

Seems bizarre to fantasise about having nothing to do and being totally dependent on a man for handouts, but each to their own. Personally the idea of being a "housewife" without even having children, basically running around after a man, would be my idea of hell.

Nothing to do!? 🤣 I love how not working = nothing to do!

I work full time but fantasise about this a lot recently. I’d have loads I could do, hobbies, volunteering, further study… aI definitely wouldn’t be putting a load of laundry on and sat twiddling my thumbs watching daytime TV.

I did this briefly. It was exciting at first to go to cafes and cook elaborate meals, but, eventually, it became a slippery slope to… without wishing to be dramatic… depression, I think.

I became quiet, sedentary, ocd, and did very little.

I really had to force myself back into the world of work, and had a complete career change, and now I see that, for me, I was trying to escape a job I hated by become a hw in the first place.

Far happier now with a meaningful, part time job which leaves me time to do housework etc too.

Well, maybe on a Friday

"seeing friends and family"

I wouldn't have any friends to see during the 9-5. Only works if your friends are shift workers or also housewives.

A housewife shops, cooks and cleans. It is different from someone who is basically retired.

"I work full time but fantasise about this a lot recently. I’d have loads I could do, hobbies, volunteering, further study… aI definitely wouldn’t be putting a load of laundry on and sat twiddling my thumbs watching daytime TV."

There's a difference between fantasy and reality though.
I fantasise about winning the lottery, which is very similar really.

@Monopolyiscrap

A housewife shops, cooks and cleans. It is different from someone who is basically retired.

Yes, it's an occupation. The point of retirement is to rest when you are too old to work.

If I were in this position I hope I would have a clean welcoming home that was always open to visitors (no frantic tidying and a listening ear). I’d not need to pay a poorer woman than myself to do my cleaning for me only for her to go home to a house that needed cleaning too. I hope I’d have the time to really appreciate my husband and support him, rather than constantly tallying up who had done what and who hadn’t done their fair share. I hope I’d be able to take time to shop consciously, visiting small independent tradespeople to keep the high street going and support local business rather than regretfully shopping at the supermarket because it just needs doing. I’d walk or cycle more often because I could plan my days around the weather and not be trying to squeeze 5 appointments into a day, dashing from A to B and swearing at the traffic. I’d cook from scratch using traditional skills and knowing exactly what was in my food. I’d grow some of my own veg. I’d enjoy the process of day-to-day life and I’d have time to talk to neighbours, to spot when elderly people were struggling; to volunteer, to really invest time in my hobbies, to not be running on empty all the time, to go foraging for local ingredients, to develop my spiritual life. I fear I wouldn’t have time for all of these things….. but I wouldn’t be bored

@Gwenhwyfar

"I work full time but fantasise about this a lot recently. I’d have loads I could do, hobbies, volunteering, further study… aI definitely wouldn’t be putting a load of laundry on and sat twiddling my thumbs watching daytime TV."

There's a difference between fantasy and reality though.
I fantasise about winning the lottery, which is very similar really.

My point was that not working doesn’t mean you have nothing to do. As PP seemed to imply.

Work gets in the way of what I actually want to be doing with my life - same for everyone I bet. I’d not be bored at all, so much I’d do!!

But yes the chance of me being able to give up work or winning the lottery is zero to none 😭

"Her earning potential has typically been lost so she will have a lower income than she would if she had worked."

Maybe for career women, but not really for many, many women who do basic jobs so it depends a lot on what your original job was.

"I hope I’d have the time to really appreciate my husband and support him, rather than constantly tallying up who had done what and who hadn’t done their fair share. "

I think plenty of housewives have issues about their husbands' domestic contributions of expectations too.

" I hope I’d be able to take time to shop consciously, visiting small independent tradespeople to keep the high street going and support local business rather than regretfully shopping at the supermarket because it just needs doing."

Lol. I would still go to the supermarket so I could use the freed up time for something nicer.

@Gwenhwyfar

"seeing friends and family"

I wouldn't have any friends to see during the 9-5. Only works if your friends are shift workers or also housewives.

Or WFH.

"Or WFH."

Well only at lunchtime, which you could do if you both worked in offices close to each other. Would you just sit there and watch them work?

@Mollysocks

I work full time but fantasise about this a lot recently. I’d have loads I could do, hobbies, volunteering, further study… aI definitely wouldn’t be putting a load of laundry on and sat twiddling my thumbs watching daytime TV.

Yes and I've said this before but that isn't really what I mean by being a housewife.

I'd love to have time to volunteer/study/travel etc but to me a housewife is someone who spends most of their time managing a home.

@Waferbiscuit has summarised really well exactly how I feel about this and why some of us working mothers have difficulty with this.

I totally understand what @CheltenhamLady says about valid choices and you are right, at an individual level at least: people essentially make choices to fit their circumstances. These choices are selfish and that's fine, you need to structure your life around your own needs, not some ideological goal. This applies as much to working mothers as to SAHMs.

But the thing is that for women like me (I'm a working single mum) this doesn't happen in a vacuum. Your decision to be entirely supported by your husband is your own and all power to you if that's what you want. But the reality is this does have a knock on impact on the lives of women like me who have to work because there is no-one else to support us.

The fact that a lot of women still choose to devote their lives to essentially supporting their husbands and children has consequences for us. It makes it much harder for us to be accepted in the workplace. It makes it harder for us to compete with men who can work around the clock because there's always someone at home looking after the children. It makes it much harder to argue for flexible hours, for remote working, for a range of totally reasonable innovations which allow us to work effectively around our children. This in turn makes it much harder for us to earn at parity with them, to be taken as seriously as them and to develop our careers. Which ultimately affects our children. It also has a big impact on our daughters because it makes it harder for us to model to them that they can succeed in their careers.

Now you may well say "why is this my problem?" and at an individual level you're absolutely right. It isn't your problem and it isn't your job to structure your life to make mine easier or to promote working mothers.

All I would ask is that you give this some thought before trotting out the kneejerk "you must be jealous" or "why can't you live and let live" points. There's a tendency on these boards for people to paint a stereotype central casting image of working mums as ball busting 1980s style corporate types who get a kick out of putting other women down and hate spending time on their children.

In fact a lot of working mothers have literally no other alternative. The idea that we raise these genuine questions out of jealousy is insulting and unhelpful. The way the workforce is shaped has a direct influence on our lives and the way that society is shaped has an influence on that. I don't want or expect every woman to work if she doesn't have to. But I do expect out of decency that those women who are lucky enough not to have to work take the time to consider that there are real impacts on us from these choices.

Sorry but that's a massive stretch- "Everyone has to have a family set up just like me or I won't be taken seriously." What about men and women without children who don't have to rush home- are they undermining working mothers as well? Maybe they should be told to have kids so everyone is on an equal footing?

Seriously, the solution to outdated and sexist working practices is to address the practices and the people who uphold them. Blaming other women for making different life choices really isn't it, and it's certainly not feminist.

@Bosephine

I'm deliberately not saying everyone has to have a family set up like mine. I've gone out of my way to acknowledge that people are totally within their rights to make choices that suit theirs and their family's needs.

But what I would appreciate is that people who have the luxury of not having to do this at least acknowledge the fact that these choices do have an impact on our lives, instead of painting all of us as jealous/bitter/ball-busting or incapable of prioritising our children.

[quote thepeopleversuswork]@Bosephine

I'm deliberately not saying everyone has to have a family set up like mine. I've gone out of my way to acknowledge that people are totally within their rights to make choices that suit theirs and their family's needs.

But what I would appreciate is that people who have the luxury of not having to do this at least acknowledge the fact that these choices do have an impact on our lives, instead of painting all of us as jealous/bitter/ball-busting or incapable of prioritising our children.[/quote]
The reality is that every choice has a consequence, intended or incidental, that impacts society as a whole.

Those who choose to have children impact the working and financial lives of those who don't.
And, of course, I could go on with example after example.

However, what about the impact of those who choose not to work on the availability of jobs for those who need them?
Surely, someone who works for money they don't actually need is taking a job from someone (like yourself) who does need to work?

Would it really be better for working women in general if every woman worked, simply to try to address the issues people are mentioning with male colleagues and corporate structure?

Would it be better for society if no one volunteered?

Would it be better for society if no one took on unpaid family caring roles?

This is why it seems to me that it balances the books by 'allowing' those who choose to do the above to get on with it, and not decry them for making different choices to the one you (the general you) make.

Women (or men) choosing not to work may actually be benefitting the workforce overall.

thepeopleversuswork - well, you could equally argue that the fact most women choose or have to go to work these days has implications for those who choose to SAH because it can seem less socially acceptable?

Should any woman who works give that ‘serious consideration’ before deciding to take on their ‘lifestyle?’

No, of course not. Because they would be utterly ridiculous wouldn’t it? Also, it’s meaningless.

Societies thrive best when there is diversity of choice. Yes, some women (and men) have more choices available to them than others, but unless you are advocating for some kind of communist state where everyone is forced out to work the same hours for the same pay, this is unavoidable.

You could apply the ‘impact on societal structures and expectations’ argument to anything and everything and this is why its a pointless, empty statement. You could argue women who have children are affecting those who don’t. Women who want to WFH or more flexibly are negatively affecting those who don’t. Age, race, class - you name it - you could accuse any demographic of impacting societal structures really.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to SAH your own children. It should be a basic human right. Unfortunately, it’s not for everyone, but the fact some people don’t have that option is not going to change what, for some women, is an extremely powerful instinct. You can’t legislate against human instinct. Nor should society try and guilt trip women into suppressing their instincts (if indeed, this is the way they feel - of course all women are different). The unavoidable truth is that some women feel extremely strongly about this kind of thing and not being at home with your kids could feel like having the core if your existence denied to you. That kind of thing can make women psychologically, spiritually and physically ill, in some cases. Let women life the way they choose and own it as valid. Society has never been homogenous and never will be - nor should it be.

I’d love to do it if I could afford it and it wouldn’t be someone else having to work to keep me.

I’d love to really learn a language, maybe do a degree in it. I also have a hobby/volunteering position that I’d love to really focus on and contribute to more.

Plus unlimited holidays ? Sounds absolutely idyllic.

In fact I am considering going for a job which will bet me a higher salary and only work 4 days a week purely because I don’t want to work 5.