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.

@Tsort - I think the post would have been a lot clearer if you just said that the high housing and childcare costs mean that more families need to have 2 incomes and still do the housework.
Therefore a couple has to do more total work now than 50 years ago (1 ft woh job plus domestic duties vs 2ft woh jobs plus domestic duties often done by woman).
Plus porn has become worse; and dv hasn’t gone away.

other people have said that now is likely better than 50 years ago for single women without kids. Present day has more career/education opportunities for women - which can help if women divorce/split (or partner becomes ill). Better legislation for shared parental leave, flexi working, wfh. Better technology to make domestic duties easier.

things that would help - build more houses, cheaper childcare (and better paid childcare workers - who also tend to be women).

Then we disagree, as I definitely don’t think the post would have been any clearer if I’d ‘just’ said all of that. I said exactly what I meant.

I suspect OP that you were not an adult 50 years ago.

• Domestic abuse was common and women were expected to put up with it. The first refuge was only founded fifty years ago and took in women basically being tortured. The police saw it as a private matter.
• Rape in marriage was legal.
• If you went back to a man's house and were raped lots, even most would see it as your fault.
• Single parents were demonised and ostracised by many.
• Unmarried young mums still had their babies taken forcibly from them and adopted out.
• Sexual harassment in the workplace was common and was seen by many as banter.
• Paid childcare was not common and there were no benefits to help with it.
• The last of the slums still existed. And I mean slums. Families living in 1 or 2 rooms with no bathroom.
• Sexist jokes were very common.
• TV was full of sexism and racism.
• An incredibly high number of stay-at-home mums were on tranquilisers.
• Lesbians were still at risk of being put in asylums and if they had kids often had them taken away.
• Disability rights did not exist.

It is easy to look back through rose-tinted spectacles when your life is hard.

In terms of the changes, sexism changes its form. That si all that has happened. And many do not realise it.

My life isn’t hard and I’m not romanticising the past. If you read the thread, you’ll see that I acknowledge everything in your comment. All valid, all terrible. However, many (not all) of these things are still the lived existence, legal or not, of many (not all) women. With the additional modern pressures.

There was a thread a few days ago similar to this (although in relation to grandparents providing childcare). Read it, you might learn a few things.

They really do not exist as they did then.
So to take one, domestic abuse. Domestic abuse still happens. But nowdays there are refuges, Women's Aid and the Freedom Programme. There are online resources and forums. It is not easy to leave. But there is some help now. Back then except for a handful of women who used the first refuge, there was zero help unless your family helped you.
Unmarried mothers do not have their babies taken from them anymore simply because they are unmarried. It does not happen.
etc etc

There are still a lot of problems today and some new ones. But it is simply not true that nothing has improved.

I think it depends what you're comparing it to. I wasn't alive 60 years ago, but I know from talking with older relatives that pretty much all of the women in my family have always worked. I think most working class women were the same. Yeah, they got paid much less than men, which is fucking bullshit, but they still worked. Usually full-time. They also did all of the house work and childrearing, because they were women and that's how it was.

This "house wife of yesteryear" trope that gets trotted out in these debates only really applies to very particular sectors of society. It certainly isn't recognisable to any of the women from my family.

Will do. Do you remember roughly what it was called, please?

Tranquilisers were little used in the 1950's - the term wasn't even invented until 1953.

My mother was a housewife then, she never had a job outside the home. She had a pretty nice life to be honest ! Dad worked long hours as an electrician in the Navy and Mum stayed at home , doing things which didn't take all day. She told us that she always had plenty of free time to play the piano, read, do crosswords and watch the TV. She had several friends who would pop in for a cup of tea almost every day .

Dad brought in all the household money which was always in joint names of course , as was the house. He also did all the home maintenance and did any other house jobs which looked like they needed doing, ie he'd do the dishes or whatever.

I personally think that most women in those times were quite well off. They got married before they had a family, so they got a commitment from the man before they started having babies . And financially, they basically had a man bringing in all the money , which became family money and not "mine and yours".

I'm not convinced that women are better off today - I know it's easy to say " oh women in the 50's had to do what the man wanted " but neither my mum nor any other woman that I knew then, would have been beholden to a man . Those women knew their worth and the men toed the line.

Things have got considerably better for some women. For a lot, it is has not. I’m talking about the latter group. Thus my use of ‘so many’ and ‘a lot’ in the OP, not ‘all’ and ‘every’.

Okay so you want to discuss the majority of women & look at financial vs domestic contributions.

Well 1972 was 50 years ago; in 1971 53% of women aged between 16 - 64 in the UK were working so the majority of women were employed even back then. I strongly believe that men did even less housework / child rearing in the 70s compared to now so no, I think it was definitely worse for the majority of women 50 years ago.

In June 2022, 72.2% of women aged 16 - 64 in the UK were in employment so that’s a 19.2% increase from 1971. While women still do the lionshare of housework / child rearing, I think male participation in these roles has also probably increased by at least 20% compared to the 70s (probably slightly more) so no, women are not worse off now.

@starrynight21 tranquilisers have existed since 1900. The term tranquiliser was invented in 1953, not the category of drugs. Valium was given to housewives in large quantities and was called mothers little helper or the housewife pill.

Your argument seems to be my mum had an easier life than me ergo most women then had an easier life than me.

Completely agree. We have choices now that we’re unimaginable then. We are living in the best times. Yes of course there are stresses but nothing like the stress of powerlessness

Could you give sources for those stats, please?

When thinking about the mental load in isolation, yes I think many women get a bad deal. You only have to read a few threads on here to get the gist that far too many men do fuck all around the house and with the kids even though their partner works.

For me personally, DH does a lot of stuff but I’m still the person that thinks of the stuff. He would never think of whether winter uniforms still fit or if we have a present for an upcoming party or which holiday camp to book but will muck in and do his share once I think of it. It sucks, frankly, that I carry so much of the thought load when my job is much more high pressure than his.

Not true though. Studies are incredibly clear that even where women are the higher earners, they still do a higher share if housework.

I don't see how any woman can be worse off now than they would have been 50 years ago. I turn 50 in a few years time and grew up in an era of easy access to the pill and abortions, with the knowledge that just about any career was open to me, when I eventually started in a traditionally male career was able to wear trousers due to the steps taken by the women in the decade or so before I started, was able to be financially independent and buy my own house, can vote, can go into pubs, car showrooms etc by myself, live in a house with a automatic washing machine, tumble dryer,, dishwasher and microwave, have internet shopping, have convenience food, live by myself and pretty much suit myself, have children without being married without it raising many eyebrows and, whilst I'm straight, if I'd been a lesbian and come out as one in my teens (so still 30 years ago) it would have no doubt been difficult but would have been acceptable.
There's still a lot of progress to be made but I will forever be grateful that I was born when I was.

You're spot on, OP. Women are generally still doing the lion's share.

I'm not convinced men (as a general group at least) want to give up their big man jobs and status as breadwinner whatever women do.

I agree (although my partner isn't that bad as he has always done nursery drop offs, which is a nightmare - interested to see whst happens when I do the school run in future). I do much of the mental labour/buying stuff needed, which I would like him to do, but would probably be useless at. He earns a few grand more than me and we work similar hours.

Men just need to do their 50%. I wouldn't want to be a housewife or rely on a man for money. Women need to not be giving lazy men a chance to be lazy. Attitudes should change if people stop accepting this behaviour and refuse to be with anyone like this. Ideally any lazy people should change first, but sadly they always needs a boot in the arse.

What a vile despicable view of working class people.

What a vile despicable view of working class people.

Totally agree
Where is the idea coming from that women didnt work out of the home?
All my female relatives did.
My GM had 3 jobs!
She did her own housework// childcare as well.
What you are forgetting Op is that many women worked out of the home and many within it but it just wasnt seen as anything of note unlike their husbands " big job"
Go back 50 years -no thanks!

I think you raise an interesting question OP and I often read threads on here and wonder the same. Having said this, I was not around in the 1950s, so it's impossible to draw a direct comparison.

I think a big source of unhappiness and even illness for women these days is that modern life means they have to work full-time when children come along. Great if they want to (and many do). But you only have to read threads on here now to see that many really struggle with putting their children in childcare full time (or even at all).

Some women seem to expect very little of men these days. They think being married to a man who earns more than them but wants separate finances is great (!) - some even are conditioned to see this as 'independence.'

If a man does the laundry and actually interacts with his kids, women hail him as a "50/50 dad" and this seems to be the ultimate accolade on MN. But often 50/50 is, in reality, more like 30/70 (the 70% falling to the woman). Do, in realty, she is left with a so-called 'new msn' who is quite happy to plod along in his career because 'equality' now dictates she should also want to work full time and earn the same or perhaps more then him. The problem is that men know that women, working or not, will still take on the majority of child-related "headspace" because they just do that naturally. So for women, "having it all' would be more accurately described as largely "doing it all" but being told this is equality and what they wanted. So they can't complain and are splitting themselves in two - permanently guilty and trying to convince themselves they have a great deal. You can see this blatantly from certain threads on here right now.

I worked with a majority of men, who have working wives, and they certainly do their share of housework and childcare. My friend's husbands also do their part.
My OH does more housework than me, quite significantly.

It's only on mn that I hear about all those lazy husbands who do next to nothing. Maybe because the women with husbands who do their share have no reason to come and moan on mn?