To think being a housewife might be nice ?

[Felixss]

I'm on leave I've managed to get the housework done the deep cleaning , decluttered, sorted my clothes and 3 tip runs. I've washed the covers on the sofa and got through a mountain of laundry. Food shop delivered, put away and ordered DDs new shoes. I'm going to sand down and paint DDs chest of drawers. To top it off I've cooked a lovely healthy meal for the family.
I feel really pleased I've managed to do all the jobs I've been meaning to do. I'm always snowed under stressed from work and end up not doing it all. I do have a cleaner but they don't do the nitty gritty really.

AIBU to think being a house wife actually might be nice ? Less pressure and you can complete all the home stuff at your leisure. 🤣 I wouldn't do this as I've worked so hard to get where I am but I can see why it might be tempting.

@Thepeopleversuswork

But as a single mother who had had to work straight through my daughters childhood and who has managed to build a good and well paid career without any of the advantages these men have had I can’t help feeling a bit contemptuous that they seemingly can’t manage their careers without a woman at home doing everything to “facilitate” as it’s described.

Exactly. It's difficult to compete with men at work who have women at home doing everything for them.

Yet another thing that working women have against them.

Its an incredibly depressing thought that so many mediocre men, only capable of their jobs if they make them their single focus, are outstripping talented multi tasking women. And often only because due to other commitments those women simply struggle to be in the right place (the pub after work, the charity golf tournament at the weekend) at the right time to make the right connections.

@SouthLondonMum22

Exactly. It's difficult to compete with men at work who have women at home doing everything for them.

Yep. And this may not register with women who have given up work to “support their husbands career”, but it massively skews the odds against those of us who have to work.

Every evening drinks event which you can’t attend because of lack of childcare, every time you log off at exactly 6pm to pick a child up (even though you are probably working far more efficiently than the male colleagues who are all off to the pub) is held up as evidence of your lack of commitment, due to no fault of your own. It damages your chances of promotion, hinders your survival in the workplace etc.

Again, I would never expect women to make choices which damage the quality of their own lives to support the cause of female advancement at work in general terms. Of course people have to do what benefits their families.

But it would be nice if women who have the luxury of choosing whether they work or not would at least admit that this female “facilitation”, whether it takes the form of SAHMs or full fat 1950s style housewives or whatever, exacerbates the structural problems for those of us who don’t have this choice.

and those husbands also make sexist assumptions when they are at work.

Such as recently, a man at my company who said it didn't occur to him to consider me for a work opportunity involving brief travel because he 'didn't think I'd want to leave my baby'. 🙄

If you would like me to admit that, I'll admit it @Thepeopleversuswork .

I know for myself, I would be a lot more focused if I worked if I knew my husband was at home with the kids as default, rather than having to pick up from childminders or deal with a nanny etc.

What I would say though is that the situation is clearly far more complex than SAHMs v working women. I mean, for starters, you only have one child so you have it a lot easier (in terms of career impact) than women who have several. Are women who work part-time or WFH also perpetrating structural inequality for those who work full-time (not from home)? Are grandparents who look after children perpetrating structural inequality because some single mums have to use childcare? I mean, there are so many variations; so many family structures; so many types of job and tiles that people are in - how can you meaningfully draw comparisons? Families are not standardised - it's never going to be a case of every family in the entire nation having 2.2 children and both parents working exactly 9-5, is it? Some jobs are more stressful than others and there's no getting away from that. Some families are larger than others. Some children have more complex needs than others. So on so on. Two parent families, single parent families, step families - they all what they need to do in their own unique circumstances. That's life.

But it isn't complex because it all goes back to sexism. I feel the same way about women working part time as I do about SAHM because it is almost always the woman who goes part time.

It's also a choice to have multiple children or long maternity leaves. It's precisely why I won't be having more than 2 children and went back to work when DS was 12 weeks.

Families absolutely come in different shapes and sizes but it doesn't make sexist choices any less sexist.

The issue is not the variations in family set ups but the attitudes to women that these men perpetuate.
Women are for sex, raising children and cleaning.
That's the barrier women face.
Not only do they often have the issue of their own DH not pulling his weight domestically once they finally get back the workplace they face sexual assault dressed up as a joke, derogatory attitudes,impossible working conditions, maternity discrimination and wait for it... lower pay.

Sexism

@echoo

What I would say though is that the situation is clearly far more complex than SAHMs v working women. I mean, for starters, you only have one child so you have it a lot easier (in terms of career impact) than women who have several. Are women who work part-time or WFH also perpetrating structural inequality for those who work full-time (not from home)? Are grandparents who look after children perpetrating structural inequality because some single mums have to use childcare? I mean, there are so many variations; so many family structures; so many types of job and tiles that people are in - how can you meaningfully draw comparisons?

Of course. Families come in all shapes and sizes and people have every right to do whatever they can do to make the difficult business of raising children as easy as they can. And you're right that comparatively speaking I've had it easy: I have only one child, I'm healthy and I'm lucky enough to have a well-enough paid job that childcare, while expensive, has not been prohibitively expensive for me. And, critically, I work for a female-led company, something I'm thankful for on a daily basis.

But to answer your question, it's not the women who are usually perpetrating structural equality, it's a patriarchal society in which the default is that if someone is required to stay at home it's usually the woman. I completely understand that it makes sense in a lot of families for one parent to stay at home for at least some of the time to look after children. I just have yet to hear a compelling explanation for why it almost always has to be the woman. Particularly when you are referring to highly educated women who have had very successful careers prior to having children.

And it really sticks in the craw when people (and I'm not talking about you but one poster in particular has really excelled at this), come on onto these threads and crow about how women who choose to work are moronic corporate automatons who can't think of anything better to do with our lives and have "drunk the Kool Aid". If, like me, you have to work, you have to believe in work because work is what stands between you and not being able to feed and house your child. And for someone like me work is really important and I'm not going to apologise for that.

It seems that the argument is unless women also work full time then they are perpetuating this sexism? That SAHMs and housewives are the reason this sexism is persisting? It’s a bit chicken and egg though and I don’t think women blaming other women is helpful.

Society is sexist. Societal norms on the whole make it harder for women in the workplace. Some of these things we can’t help - men can’t give birth. But as a country we could get better at shared parental leave. We could have cheaper, more accessible childcare like other countries manage. My childcare with 2 kids under 2 was £2,300 per month. It’s no wonder sadly many women throw in the towel. Add in little family help, a DH who travels and it becomes a tricky and stressful time trying to juggle it all. You default to who earns the most. And the cycle goes on.

I do think some things are getting better for women. More WFH, more flexibility. But men need to do more too. They need to be the ones to leave early to pick up the ill child. Or take the day off to look after the ill child.

But it’s not so black and white as many on here are making out. That housewives are a drain on society who give nothing back. You don’t know each individual backstory on how they came to that decision. Usually as a family.

@Thepeopleversuswork

And it really sticks in the craw when people (and I'm not talking about you but one poster in particular has really excelled at this), come on onto these threads and crow about how women who choose to work are moronic corporate automatons who can't think of anything better to do with our lives and have "drunk the Kool Aid".

It really does. Especially when the only reason they can be at home is because their husbands have ''drunk the Kool Aid''.

Though I think my favourite is when they act like nurseries raise the children and working parents have no idea what a day home with the baby is like. Makes me laugh (and then despair) every time.

The simple answer as to why some women stay at home with their children is because they WANT to. When all is said and done, in full knowledge and experience of structural sexism, it is nevertheless what they actively want to do. It is more important to them than anything else. I know some people on here can't / won't let themselves believe that, but it is true. That's all I can tell you.

But why are you blaming women for this? You are blaming women for having lots of kids like the men have nothing to do do with that decision. You are claiming that if a women takes a long maternity leave (some women may want to spend some time at home with a young baby) then she is perpetuating sexism. It’s all the women’s fault. Not men, not society.

Exactly. But apparently it’s not acceptable to actually want to stay at home with young children. It’s perpetuating sexism if you don’t go back to work full time when the baby is 2 weeks old..

@Delatron

@echoo

Why don't men want to stay home with their children?

Why didn't your ohs?

Mine did.

@Botw1 Didn’t you say upthread that both you and your OH work?

They are perpetuating sexism but they certainly aren't the only reason why it is persisting. This is just about housewives in particular because it's the subject of the discussion.

I have said all along that more men need to stay at home, more men need to work part time and absolutely need to be doing more in general.

In my perfect world, men and women would each get 6 months of parenting leave. Use it or lose it. I said it many pages ago now but it starts at birth when men have to return to work after 2 weeks and women become the automatic caregiver.

Childcare is certainly an issue too. We pay £2,302 a month for just a 4 month old.

Botw1 - why is anyone the way they are?

Do you think every marriage needs to be the same as yours? Good luck with that.

In my perfect world, men and women would each get 6 months of parenting leave. Use it or lose it. I said it many pages ago now but it starts at birth when men have to return to work after 2 weeks and women become the automatic caregiver

I would like to see this too. Actually I’d like them each to get 9 months of parenting leave but that’s a bit pie in the sky 🙂

I have blamed a sexist society the whole time. Women make these choices because sexism is ingrained in society.

Women are socialised from birth to be carers.

I think the countries that have shared parental leave for 6 months and affordable childcare do better in terms of keeping women in the workplace.

Yes it’s a sexist society. Therefore I don’t judge women (who I have no idea what their individual circumstances are) who choose to stay at home because society is making it too hard for them to keep working. Or they want to be at home with young kids. Likewise I wouldn’t judge a man.

That’s the point there’s too much criticism and judgement of women on here.

For example, it’s easier to keep working if you have 1 child, if your DH has a flexible job, if you have family nearby, if you have a flexible job. Etc etc. Everyone’s circumstances are different.

@Delatron

The thread is about choosing to be a housewife

Plenty on the thread have given their exact reasons for choosing it.

So we do know their circumstances

I've yet to read a reason that wasn't a sexist one

I haven't yet either.

Not one person has said that.
Both of us were at home with our young children, zero CC whilst WOH .
Women going back FT from labour ward is not the answer.
The opposite of a SAHM is not working FT and doing all the domestic stuff and CC outside work.
It's both parents contributing equally to CC and domestic tasks whilst being able to WOH to the extent they wish.
ML followed by paid PL( either sex if SS couples) if you don't take it you lose it.
Also CMS in this country needs a massive overhaul, its a disgrace and men must be held legally responsible for the children they father.

@Delatron

But why are you blaming women for this? You are blaming women for having lots of kids like the men have nothing to do do with that decision. You are claiming that if a women takes a long maternity leave (some women may want to spend some time at home with a young baby) then she is perpetuating sexism. It’s all the women’s fault. Not men, not society.

I haven't seen any posts "blaming women". Most of us have gone out of our way to acknowledge that many women face very difficult choices and we all ultimately have to prioritise our children's and our families' welfare over what's best for society.

But the fact remains that a society in which the woman almost always becomes the default carer and the person who sacrifices her career is structurally unfair. And the people who really feel this at the sharp end are the women who have to work. We are competing with men who are already at a structural advantage because they are men, amplified by the fact that they have a "facilitator" at home who basically does everything possible to remove any domestic responsibility from them.

That's a double whammy for us: not only can we not work as hard as them (for reasons discussed upthread) so they outcompete us, we also do the "double shift" at home because they don't lift a finger at home because their "facilitators" take the load off.

And let's be clear, I don't primarily blame women, I blame men. Because men still hold all the cards in the way society is structured and the odds are still massively stacked in their favour. I don't hold it against women for having to compromise to adapt as best they can to bring their children up in a patriarchal society.

No one is talking about removing a woman's choice to do anything, as long as she can afford to do it. But when someone breezily starts a thread about how much "fun" it would be to be a housewife (that's right, a woman whose entire role it is to make it really frictionless for a man to do a job I do perfectly well without any support) I have to pinch myself and wonder if I've woken up in 1973.