To think a lot of women are worse off than 50 years ago?

[Tsort]

A certain type of person is nostalgic for the old days when ‘men were men, and women were women’. I am not. However, it must be noted that at the time when women were expected to be docile acquiescent homemakers, men were expected to foot the bill. They paid for dinner, sorted the mortgage and brought home the bacon. Not for me, but a fair division of labour.

Now, we have a generation of women who ‘pay their way’, go Dutch and refuse to let men pay for them as they don’t want to be indebted. Grand.

But, these same women also do the lion’s share of housework, because ‘men don’t see it’ and shoulder the emotional labour because ‘that’s just the way men are’.

So, women are now shouldering some of the traditionally male burdens while the traditional female burdens have remained firmly in place. How is this an improvement for women? And why do so many tolerate it? This is a profound misunderstanding of feminism and it hurts so many of us.

It's ahem.., SW London Sisisisisi. How did you guess?

Thinking back, when my kids were pre-school, I don't know a single family who has their children in full-time daycare. No SAHDs. All SAHMs at least until all the DC we're in school, but nobody planned to go back to their previous jobs anyway and many are SAHMs well into the teen years. In the younger years, it was common to be a SAHM and have a nanny as well, at least a few days a week or after school. I was definitely in the minority to not use a nanny or au-pair. If anything, friends and their husbands used to ask me why my husband never got a nanny in to help me! I never wanted another woman in the house, that was why, but some thought this was most weird.

I think it’s unlikely that you would have less money from working for years. It’s just now how maths works.

We would definitely have less money if I had been working because my being a SAHM has had an exponential impact on what DH has been able to earn. It would have been financially counterproductive for me to return to work.

Because it’s not usual at all in the uK in this day and age to “not even consider” that a woman might continue to work and use childcare rather than just give up her job for good. That hasn’t been usual for over 50 years. It would indicate some sort of very conservative or religious background.

That weird claim about looking at it though your kids perspective contradicts that you “didn’t even consider childcare”. Did you consider it or not? At what age did you look at it through your kids perspective. As a baby? How did you get into the mindset of a baby?

i asked both dds directly (as they are both in after school club in primary school) if they would rather come home some days now that I work from home a lot. They both said no - they like after school club, there are lots of activities to do with their friends. It’s more fun than sitting round the house.

ah does he need you to facilitate him? He can’t do his job without you to do his laundry? Does he have female colleagues?

You are misunderstanding me MsPincher. There was no need for my kids to go into childcare. Childcare is not default. It's purely optional. Why on earth would they be in childcare when they have their own mother available?

You can mock all you like about 'facilitating' a husband, but it would have been financially stupid not to. It would have held us all back.

yeah, don’t know where you’ve been but I think you’ve missed a lot of feminism/ modern life. I don’t even think anyone is particularly taking issues with sahm - rather unequal relationships (pp who said it benefits her that her dh prohibits her from working etc) and silly gender stereotypes. Oh and nasty attacks on single mums (im a manly thing that is jealous of their husband because I don’t think it’s great to be a tradwife). Also a lot of sexist pseudo biology that women are born nuturers and men are born to take out the bins.

if you’re not aware of modern feminism you should definitely read up on it. Life has moved on and women no longer have to be subservient.

Where we lived there were no nurseries for childcare when mine were born I had to wait until the youngest started school to return to work a long six years

I’m asking you why you said neither of you “even considered childcare”. That’s extremely unusual- not only not to use childcare but not even to consider it. Why? Are you from a conservative or religious background?

No one is suggesting it’s not optional but it usual and commonplace in the uK so pretty strange that it didn’t cross your mind.

why were you “available”? Did you never have a job? Where does this hostility to childcare come from? From your family?

argh, that is hard going.isn’t there universal provision of nursery at 3plus? Or was this a while ago?

I had a nanny when they were little as I didn’t want to send them to nursery young. But once they are 3 or so they generally want to go to a nursery and play with little friends.

This is even more fun for lone parents who only have 24 hours per day to cover those three roles, rather than 48.

And obviously over 95% of those lone parents are women. But in these discussions they very rarely get considered.

I am fully aware of 'modem feminism' MsPincher. My eyes are wide open and I have lived a life of my choice.

The fact you can only conceive of my role as 'subservient' shows the narrow limitations of your thinking.

'why were you “available”? Did you never have a job? Where does this hostility to childcare come from? From your family?'

Yes worked prior to children. I don't work after them because it didn't want to and I didn't need to., As I said, it was more findbvislky ififyvtive fir me to be a SAHM because the impact of that was exponential in terms of our family financial prospects..

Re- childcare, "hostile" is your word. We would not have had three children if we'd had to use childcare. I don't know anyone who used it in the early years, except those with live-in nannies or au pairs. But not the type where you drop them off in the mornings and pick them up at 5pm. It was never something we considered in any shape or form. I don't think it's normal to consider it..

findbvislky ififyvtive ? - I think I meant 'financially effective for me to be a SAHM'

Im a single mum @RainingRubies Hi fellow single mum!

earlier in the thread a pp said I was a “Mx” and was “jealous of them having a husband” because I said I thought it was unequal being a trad wife (poster who said she liked that her dh prohibits her from working).

But we also had a more sensible discussion on how single mums are the extreme of the issues that modern women have to face.

Nannies are childcare though. Tbf very expensive childcare so not as common. But it’s pretty unusual in this day and age to have hostility to childcare. I suppose it’s pretty unusual too to have the views you do about men and women etc as well. Thankfully!

Not remotely unusual. Maybe you need to get out and about more? You are in a very narrow mindset - quite scary.,

beyond your silly insults you know it’s unusual in the uK for a woman to automatically give up her job and “not even consider” childcare.

The successful housewife is no different in this than the successful “empowered” woman who does some career that isn’t really a passion for her but fulfills her because it makes her feel a success at life.

By what criteri do you deem someone to be a "successful housewife"?

But your post assumes that couples will both want to balance work and family duties to the same extent. There will still be men like those who do your husbands job who want to work excessively and these people will achieve the best results (so why should that be stopped), then there will be women who don’t want that and they may end up with these men sometimes.

A system that forced both to work (but not too much) would be holding people like that back and on the work from sounds sure to produce mediocrity.

Working excessively does not achieve the best results. Studies consistently show that people are more productive (not just per hour, but overall) when they have a work/ life balance: it does not "produce mediocrity". Or do you have some new research to share the contradicts the large body of existing research on this topic?

And then what? They leave said useless man and in many cases end up doing 100% of earning and home life. Right decision however, it hardly improves the burden of responsibility on the woman, does it?

Exactly, I can't believe that a man changed drastically overnight. He was always the same, the women chooses to downplay red flags and turn a blind eye. You see it all the time here. A women has more choice today than ever before, just that's its become acceptable to lack accountability.

Sometimes people do change. Very drastically, very fast. With my own ex-H nobody saw any red flags. Nobody. Not his own family and friends or mine. Nobody could have predicted what he did because it was completely alien to the character he had shown through his entire life. Every single person was shocked.

Stop victim blaming the women whose partners wreck their lives. It's smug and vindictive and hugely ignorant. It is attitudes like yours that add to the stigma that women still suffer when they divorce such men. Somehow, people like you still manage to convince yourself it must be the woman's fault that a skilled compulsive liar manipulated them and everybody else in their lives.

You are very much the exception doing that much childcare in your 70s. I am sure you'll have a very strong bond with your grandchildren as a result. But it's very unusual to be doing so much.