FIL expects me to serve his son

[Daisypowers]

Because I don't wait around on DP hand and foot like a 1950s housewife, FIL (69) thinks I'm lazy and a bad girlfriend. Whenever I'm there (this weekend for example) he will make little comments now and then. This weekend DP wanted to clean his walking boots in the garden, and FIL said 'oh maybe Daisypowers can do that for you' and gestured to me. Another time DP said he was going to make himself a sandwich after playing tennis and FIL said 'Daisypowers can do that for you, have a rest.' At the time I'd just sat down in the garden with a cup of tea to read my book after doing the food shop for everyone and deheading MIL's rose bushes because she's got a bad shoulder.

Me and DP are 35, both working full time, no kids, and do an equal share of everything domestically at home. DP perfectly capable of making a sandwich for himself. Both MIL and FIL quite old fashioned and MIL does absolutely everything for FIL - all the cooking, cleaning, puts out clothes for him to wear every morning, packs his suitcase for him when he goes on holiday etc. Should I say something? Really annoys me.

Not 'fact' at all.

Which generation are you referring to? (Hint: I'm nearly as old as Fil and it's not my generation)

You do know feminism had already been invented by then, don't you?

Some families have different set-ups. They shouldn't assume all other families do the same as them, though.

I grew up in a house where some chores were done by one parent only. My mother did 95% of the evening meals, my dad would do all the cooked breakfasts though. My dad did all the ironing, never saw my mum with an iron in her hand. My dad did all the finance. My mum did most of the cleaning indoors and laundry, mending clothes, shopping, walking me to school and back etc. Recycling was also a dad job, as was mowing the lawn.

They don't assume that me and my partner divide things the same way though.

I'd just make a sarcastic comment personally, or spell out that you both have full-time jobs so why exactly should you be the one to take on extra work? Because vagina?

She would have to go somewhere though so why say no to grammar school given it would potentially increase the money she could earn before marriage and also probably increase the chance of marrying someone well off. I'm not saying it didn't happen in any family but disagree that it was usual attitude for women in the 60s. There were as many girls at grammar schools as boys.

Haha, my FIL is exactly the same, and so is MIL!

they both now hate me! 🤣

"This is the 21st century and times have changed. He is grown up and quite capable of .... " doing whatever he's commented on.

"I am not a domestic slave."

@dianthus101 most of those girls would likely have been middle class.

This is an extract from a report I found
The 1954 Gurney-Dixon Report found that children whose fathers worked in ‘unskilled’ or ‘semi-skilled’ jobs were less likely to attend grammars. Children in these categories made up just over 20% of grammar school pupils, but 30% of pupils generally.

An academic study from around the same time commented that “the lower working class are still markedly under-represented in the Grammar Schools”. At the end of the decade, experts were writing that grammar schools were “largely middle class”.

MIL’s family did not believe that grammar school was for the likes of them. MIL said the same thing to us when we sent DC to private school. It wasn’t that she disagreed with private school but that it was not for the likes of her family. For the first couple of years she would regularly ask when we were taking them out! She has finally accepted our decision.

Although all pupils may have taken the 11+ in the 60s grammar schools did not help social mobility, partly down to some families attitudes.

“Honestly making any kind of joke of it wouldn't go down well. The last thing he wants is to be shown up by/mocked by a woman.”

Even more reason to do it then.

Yes, I'd 100% mock him and laugh in his face!

I'm 64 and no fucking way is it normal in my age group. He's just a bog standard twat.

So he expects you to be a housewife, but you aren't even a wife. Not very traditional really, just a sexist prig.

The odd time I'd get a similar comment my reply was "there's not enough diamonds on this hand to make that my job" while holding up my left hand.
Now I am married it'll change to "yeah, I'll need a fuckton more diamonds on this hand before I consider that my job"

I thought this but didn't post it!
Glad you said it.

Be like "traditional? We are living together......"

I'm sure they were more likely to be middle class but in the 60s it certainly wasn't unusual for working class girls to go to grammar school if they were academic enough. My family (all working class) went. Anyway, given your MIL said it wasn't for the likes of her family, I presume that the boys also didn't go to grammar school either so not sure what it has to do with sexist attitudes by this FIL.

Although all pupils may have taken the 11+ in the 60s grammar schools did not help social mobility, partly down to some families attitudes

I was at a grammar school between 1964 and 1971. There were a lot of working class kids there whose families were incredibly proud of their achievements. They were a huge boost to social mobility, a girl in my year whose dad was a farm labourer went to Oxford.

Make comments about how capable your DP is , how much you admire him for it, etc. Turn it round on DF. “Have you ever made your own sandwich? It’s very easy! DH could show you!”

@dianthus101 because she was told her role in life was to get married, have DC and run the household whilst her husband went out to work. Therefore, she didn't need an education for that

You just said her whole family didn't go to grammar school so it obviously wasn't just because of that. If she left school at 15 she would probably be working for at least 10 years before children and an education would mean better pay during that time.

@dianthus101 married at 18 babies soon after. That was the life expected for her and her peers. Gave up work after first baby, again expected by her social circle and her employers. Lives 2 miles from where she was born, again the same as her peer group.

I always thought grammar school in those days did give options for social mobility, so I was quite shocked when MIL told me about her life, and looking at the reports I have read on this it was very common. So sad.

So for those saying it isn’t a generational thing, maybe it is in certain areas.

Not sure what you mean by "peers" but most people didn't get married at 18 in the 60s or 70s. I think about 25 years was average in 1970.

Exactly, he's not showing you any respect and is basically telling you you are inferior to men, so why would you care if he's offended or not? He's offended you

Not sure what you mean by "peers" but most people didn't get married at 18 in the 60s or 70s. I think about 25 years was average in 1970.

Both my mum & auntie were 18 when they got married in 1968 & 1971 respectively. Auntie waited on her husband & sons to the extent uncle (before he died) & Cousin 1 can't use an ATM!

Dad was not waited on hand & foot, mum went back to work when I was 6 weeks old (nana lived with us). Mum said even if she had been a SAHM dad would have pulled his weight. He always did his share of housework, cooking, looking after me - Sunday was our day and we did loads of brilliant (free or cheap) things.

I'm not saying nobody got married at 18. That would be like saying that nobody had babies at 18 today. Most people didn't/don't though. My mother had me at the age of 21 in the 60s and very few children I knew had a parent as young. Most people’s parents were at least four or five years older.

In the mid 1970s I think approximately 25% of women were married by 20 and 75% by 25, so the average has to be lower than 25

I agree, my dad is 66 and does everything my mum does and more!

According to this link the mean age in 1975 was 26.2 years.

www.statista.com/statistics/557962/average-age-at-marriage-england-and-wales/

Is that for first marriages, I assume ages will be skewed by second marriages etc. the statistic I saw for first marriages was age 22 for women. I also assume data will be different for different demographics. So in areas where women were encouraged to further their education would get married later.

Bearing in mind gave children before marriage was frowned upon and a real stigma (highest number of adoptions in 1968) and the pill only becoming available to all women would be getting married early

If it was 22 for first marriages it still means most women were not married at 18. Also age for first birth would have been 24 or 25.