To wish woman didn’t have to work

[Blueberryancakes]

I think I was born in the wrong decade.

Somedays/Most days I wish I lived in the days when once a woman got married she would give up work. Stay at home have children, cook and clean.

I know it’s such an anti feminist opinion but I guess that’s how I feel.

I enjoy cooking and cleaning. I hate going to work. I wish we lived in a time when 1 wage would pay the bills.

Anyone else think like me?
I know woman now have so many career options nowadays but house wife seems to be a very privileged one.

I think what a lot of women miss when saying 'I wouldn't want to be dependant on my husband' is that the man in that situation is also far more dependant on his wife. It created a far more robust marriage structure to raise a family.

Have you thought of a career change so you could work from home part time? Many women work part time from home. Also, cooking and cleaning get boring after a while (I have been stay at home mum for 11 years). I am now thinking of ideas to get back to work (part time and from home!).

@CantDealwithChristmas Women have ALWAYS worked. The beautiful SAHM is a patriarchal fantasy spanning a few decades at most. Like the ideal of the southern belle.

^This, exactly. Before we had modern appliances etc, laundry was a full day, baking was a full day, many women had jobs on the side (e.g. weaving, sewing), and imagine having to cleaning the house with coal dust everywhere, in every room, without a hoover 😢Nope, unless you were very rich, life was hard.

I'm from the NW UK and our women have always worked. Not all of them, but many. Being a housewife and mother can be pleasant, or frustrating. Paid employment, or maintaining your potential to gain employment, is essential because the majority of men cannot be held to providing for wives and children.

I regularly thank my lucky stars that I don’t have to stay at home and cook and clean, because I’m rubbish at it and would hate it.

My mum in the 70s/80s only worked a few hours and all the financial burden was on my dad. He was anxious and depressed, always one step away from redundancy. I’m glad DH doesn’t have that burden. It’s also a myth that you could survive happily on one average salary then - we had no spare money, no eating out, no new furnishings, no central heating for most of that, no car, all clothes were second hand, no holidays. Most of my friends’ mums worked once we were in primary school.

I think someone on a teacher’s salary could support a family on one wage in the 80s though, definitely salary erosion in that middle bracket.

I’ve been doing my family tree and the women mostly worked, as well as raising 10 children and no mod cons.

There are alternatives though. I'm a lone parent working full time. I don't need a partner at home to manage that. There is paid childcare, cleaners (if you want one). But there's no substitute for earning money.

Poor women have always worked, they just don’t make for good TV shows so you never hear about them. Through the 19th and 20th century, it wasn’t that women ‘didn’t need’ to work, it was that a woman in the family working was seen as a sign of a feckless man, or of poor money management and it was a real stigma. The women were often not allowed to work even if the family would benefit, because the man would feel threatened. For a long time women also couldn’t divorce or escape abusive situations because they had absolutely no income of their own, no stability for their children and were absolutely reliant on men.

However, Right up until the early 80’s it was quite possible for the majority of working class families to afford to live on one wage. The stigma relaxed and eventually died throughout the 60’s and 70’s and cultural attitudes changed. Married women were encouraged to work (for less than the men, obviously) from the early 1950’s onwards in order to prop up the dwindled labour force after the war.

I would like to see a universal basic income paid to every individual that’s always enough to afford basic accommodation and living expenses, and a cap on private rent (dependant on square footage) that ensures the UBI always covers the rent for basic accommodation. You would be paid the UBI from birth (child benefit initially), and it would increase when you begin living independently or when you reach 18, whichever is sooner.

Living on UBI will be fine short term for most people, and enable a basic but dignified standard of living. Taxes would be high, but because you have enough to cover the basics via UBI, the income from work is supplemental. No need for maternity pay, sick pay, unemployment benefit, pensions etc from the government, because when you can’t work you just drop to UBI which is enough to cover everything. Literally no benefits system at all. No more worthy and unworthy poor, just people, all with the same basic right to live with dignity. It’s triple locked the same way pensions are. There are no sanctions, no punishment, no instance where it can be revoked from you and even if you go to prison, your UBI is used to fund the prison system you’re living in. Same thing for care homes and residential care. No need to sell your house when you go into care, UBI from individuals covers the fees and they can’t be more than that. Every single person, from billionaires downwards would receive UBI as long as they paid taxes and lived full time in the U.K as a citizen. The only instance where UBI could be revoked is for anyone who pays more than 10% of their taxes in another country, or holds more than 10% of their wealth offshore. You could also lose your UBI if you were ever caught avoiding paying tax in any way. The punishment for that is permanent revoke, so it costs you more in the long run to avoid paying taxes. It’s therefore only ever the wealthy who risk revoke, not the poor.

This way, one parent can always stay at home for as long as they like, everyone is afforded a dignified standard of living and if you want more than that as most people do, you work.

No more generational injustice, it would be possible for any person to leave an abusive situation and know they could survive, kids could be raised at home if that’s what the family want. You could take time off to look after elderly relatives at home, take career breaks with more safety etc etc etc.

I am so sorry.

I think the feminist movement got twisted by governments/society. Women now have the guise of choice in that they can have an education and choose a career but other choices were removed because now they are expected to contribute economically as well as take care of the home and all the other care roles. Some men may be great and true partners but it doesn't sound like this is currently the majority. Women are typically the ones left with the children after a break up in a world where two people have to work to afford the basics.

I think it is a big factor in the behaviour crisis in early years and schools. Many children are in regulated environments at a very young age and not out in the 'real world'.

It's great for those who ended up in careers they love but not so great for those who are in jobs they dislike because it is the only one that fits around other responsibilities and without their wage they can't afford the house.

I'm surprised you'd leave yourself so vulnerable.

I think every family needs to decide what will work for them. My mum was a tradwife and that worked for her and my dad. Do I feel she is better bonded with my siblings and I than I am with my DCs who were in nursery almost full time from six months old? No, the opposite in fact. We weren’t deprived, but we didn’t have a lot of luxuries, and we likely wouldn’t have gone to university had it not been free/grant aided at the time.

I have a very different relationship. It’s much more ‘equal’ with a more even split of chores, and it’s based on time/need/opportunity, but there’s no expectation of assuming traditional roles. That wouldn’t suit me. Yes, I’d happily give up work if I could afford to take fantastic holidays, go and do a PhD in something just because I was really interested in it, and spend my days going to the gym and having lovely lunches with my friends, but no way would I give up work to do the cooking and cleaning. If that’s what you’d like to do, OP, you could always get a job as a housekeeper - you can cook and clean to your heart’s content, and get paid for it.

I've been doing less work now (me and my husband have started a flower farm that joins our back garden) and he does all the work basically. I spend my day cleaning and cooking and I LOVE it. It makes me so much happier and when he comes home from working I love fussing over him and he seems so much happier and works even harder. Also additionally because I'm pregnant he has to do all the heavy lifting which normally I would battle by myself and never ask for help and now he does it and I thank him a lot and he glows!

I think previously because I was working and doing the housework and he'd do more there and also work I'd be moody and almost keeping score. Now we have two whole separate things we don't get involved in it's great! I'm happier and he's happier and he's always suggesting things we can do together to relax or have fun where before we would just scroll on our phones exhausted and a bit stressed.

If this could go on forever I'd be pleased!

You don't need a partner at home no but it would be preferable to have one (all else being equal). That's my point.

There is actually a reason for that, and I don't mean this to point fingers

When women joined the work force the amount of employees doubled and the jobs didn't, so it makes sense that now one income doesn't cover a household. Of course in today's economic climate that would also be near to impossible but I mean in general when you look at working trends. Also the government benefited massively off women working, two lots of taxes being paid, a third tax coming from the child minders and nurseries. Win win!

I wish I lived in the days when once a woman got married she would give up work. Stay at home have children, cook and clean.

But it works the same way like in those times, you just need a husband willing to be solely responsible for finances, and you can spend your days cooking and cleaning. The difference is that nowadays, you do have other options as well, and you won't get fired when you get married or pregnant. If your husband didn't earn enough to survive on, you would have had to work in those 'good old times' as well.

That's not true.
We were normal WC family. Dad sign writer, uncles, plumber, and shopkeeper. None of the women worked.

My aunt was a nurse, but she was single.

Neither of my grandmothers worked. Grandfathers, one in shipyards and one cigarette factory.

My parents bought (mortgage) their first house for £2500 in 1966, 3 bed semi big front and back garden. My grandad was horrified they were in so much debt! He rented all his life.

Written nicely .

I'd hate to rely on a partners income though! I like to spend money I have worked hard for. I also wouldn't want to be home all day with noisy bastard neighbours like I've got.

Working class families from both sides of my family.

Both of my grandmothers worked. My maternal grandmother still worked when I was a child and she must have been well into her 70s. She would clean offices as well as baking cakes from home.

She had a very strong work ethic.

My grandfather was always retired as long as I knew him he was the one who stayed at home and did the cooking etc. But he worked his whole life up until retirement.

My mum also worked part time when I was a child and then until having to stop due to health. My mother in law always worked too, had to get jobs that would fit around childcare.

So I think it's more what's painted in films etc.

There were plenty of mums when my DC were 0-7 who didn't have to work at all. I do think cost of living has changed things and more are working now.

may get a job you do like op?

I never thought i wanted to stay at home until i had a baby then i desperately wanted to (but couldn't) for a couple of years but even then i was torn and now i'd go mad with boredom!
I could never be dependent on anyone or grateful- i do think the SAHP/WAHP is unequal -one parent gets all the child time/housework the other the career/breadwinner pressure/independence and it impacts your relationship

Being a SAHM mother was the norm for more women in the past but only because it was expected, lots of men didn't let their wives work, it wasn't a choice and if you had a low standard of living that was tough.

That's not a remotely accurate picture though.

Perhaps your scenario applies in some demographics, or to yesteryear when the majority didn't own their homes. The norm now for separated couples is the wife keeping the house, and the husband downsizing to a flat/apartment. I'd imagine the majority of today's SAH women will have studied and/or worked prior to married life, thus can return to the workplace at will. The assertion that SAH women have forever traded their independence simply isn't true.

I wish you joy but that life is not for this woman, her sister or her mother. Obviously each to their own but leaving aside this whole notion is a bit 'Happy Days', three things are true.

1. This left many wives in a parlous financial state. Wages drunk, physical abuse, widowhood, abandonment. Grim. My grandfather died of TB and alcohol and my grandmother had to go back to work in her 50s so she and my dad could survive.
2. I have a partner and a daughter but also a long career under my belt, full of friendship, intellectual stimulation and challenge. I would hate not to have had that.
3. If you are going to cook properly (just been reading Ultra Processed People) it takes bloody hours out of a day, every day. This on top of cleaning and childcare begins to sound serious hard work.

I know this sound a bit serious and I have met many yummy mummies who spend their days very differently to mine and seem happy so this is just my view.

I am curious what the answers would be if the OP was a man. If he said: I love cooking and cleaning and I wish society was organised on a single income so I could have a wife rich enough to work so I could stay at home.

I suspect the answers would be a lot less sympathetic.

It’s a mixture of patriarchy and capitalism that has contributed to the current set up. But if we believe that true choice is one where we can follow our dreams (as a woman) then that ‘choice’ cannot be dependent on the man NOT having the choice to work. Because if I tell my husband today that I want to stay at home what I am also saying is that he has no option but to work.

FWIW both DH and I work. He’s a very equal parent and partner. He’s even that rare beast who has made significant career sacrifices for me even though he earns more (he’s a doctor and I am an academic). And he takes on the mental load of parenting as much as I do. But if he announced tomorrow he wanted to stay home and cook and clean (both of which he’s excellent at), I would be resentful about having to go to work to enable that.