To think that all those generations of women who battled for equality for women have actually achieved nothing!

[flixx]

All that has changed is that women are now expected to go out and work and well as still being souly responsible for the vast majority of domestic stuff and childcare.

Womens lives aren't better or easier, infact they are now so complicated that half of us are so stressed and knackered we don't even remember who we are anymore.

The role of a mother is less valued by society than it has ever been when we all know that it truely is THE hardest job ever.

I think that we have come a long way indeed and that we take for granted a lot of the changes that have been effected by all those generations of women but that also we have a long, long way to go still ...

Recently I was talking to a male colleague who is now working in our Stockholm office and he was saying how he had shared paternity leave with his wife so had effectively taken 6 mths leave.

I was really pleased about this and said how great it was but was also concerned about his career (I know mine was certainly affected even tho I am a woman and it is therefore expected for me to take leave) and asked him loads of queries about it and his prospects and whether or not he was concerned about the stigma that would inevitably attach. And he was aghast and said that - on the contrary - it would have been perceived very badly if he had not done so.

And I realised in that instant that altho I see myself as this somehow hardcore militant feminist I am inherently prejudiced in ways I am not aware of and that Sweden somehow is just the most truly egalitarian society ever. WHAT DID THEY DO TO GET IS SO RIGHT AND HOW CAN WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN?

[So wish I was swedish emoticon]

I am a bit late to this thread.

I work PT and have one 2y DD. My Dh does his share when he can but he is the main money maker in our house.

I am lucky that I am not in a relationship with a man who takes his pay packet and spends it in the pub and bookies, however I still do most of the childcare and domestic stuff. Then agian I am at home more. I still think he thinks there is a cleaning fairy to scrub the loo and skirting boards Things they never notice you have done but need doing.

It is a tough call, is our relationship unfair or uneven? I don't really think so.

This freedom of choice thing is all rather illusory. Yes in theory I have the option to work, but in practice I would be a fool to do so. I would love to go back to work, but childcare costs are so high that I'd be paying for the privelege of earning a wage. It makes economic sense for me to be a SAHM, took me months to adjust to the idea, I still find it really boring and/or frustrating at times.

I end up focusing my energies on mundane domestic things - I have developed a keen interest in cookery.......

I think there is one point that really hasn't been made yet.

70s feminists were not just campaigning for equal opportunities at work they wanted to continue those opportunities alongside mothering. We have come along way in that regard. What we still need is for women to be able to MAINTAIN those opportunities once they are mothers. This means that working full time if you feel you are mothering you want to is great (the situation I'm in). But if you feel your children need more time then flexible working should be an option in all lines of work without being penalised. If you are effectively doing a full time job in shorter hours you should be recognised with fincancial rewards and promotion prospects. If you feel your children need a parent full time when they are small then that should not been ditching your career completely. There should be ways of staying in touch and retraining to return to work.

That would be choice.

As for the "home front" of feminism. I fail here. Dh is great in many ways but I do take responsibility for more than I feel is fair of household tasks inc arranging childcare, insurance, financial stuff etc. The problem is when ever it gets too much Dh promises to take on one small part - like organising the car tax, MOT etc. Then what do you know - the time comes and he has forgotten they need renewal or he just goes for easiest not cheapest option. Perhaps I am too controlling. I would like to know how to deal with it better as I don't want my children to see an uneven distribution of mundane tasks when they are growing up.

i know this thread wasn't intended to be this weeks sahm/wohm debate but i just wanted to clarify a few points.

of course women have progressed massively in the last 50 years, in some respects we have more rights then men. it's fantastic that women can now have jobs in power (although if ever they was an example of a woman that should have stayed at home with the kids it's margaret thatcher, what a mess she made of this country). however, i think once a woman has children her priorities should change, that is not being sexist, it's being realistic. why would any educated woman decide to go ahead and have a child (or two) knowing full well that she will have to go back to work? paying half her wages to someone else to look after her child, that is fundamentally wrong imo. i'm 35, i don't know anyone of my age that was looked after by a c/m or nursery. yes if you desperately want to go out to work then do it, but dont get yourself into a financial situation that forces you to. i am a feminist, perhaps not a particularly pc one, but i can see that a womans place is at home with her children. it actually benefits the family and society in general. i see almost daily on here women moaning about their nursery c/m, well stay at home and look after your child then, that's what you should be doing...not paying someone else to do it and then moan.

alot of todays mothers probably are more stressed than they were 50 years ago, because they are trying to have it all. well we can't, and admitting that is being a strong feminist!

daftpunk - i think you have missed the (to me) crucial point that a lot of men don't esrn enough to keep a wife and children at home. the reason why your generation had sahm rather than using childminders or nurseries was because when you were a child a single wage/salary could provide a reasonable standard of living. you only have to look at the change in housing costs to see that the world is different now.

"but dont get yourself into a financial situation that forces you to"

Erm...how? How do you guarantee that? Apart from being fortunate enough to marry a rich man of course.

house prices went up because of the thatcher era...making this country a nation of home owners, selling off all the council houses. that effectively got the country by the balls because men were afraid to strike for a decent wage (wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage)..so women started going out to work to help out..now it's gone full circle with many women earning more than men.

daftpunk, a nation of home owners, many women earning more than men?? What a travesty that is. Let's turn back the clock to an era where women can and should stay at home

"...i think once a woman has children her priorities should change, that is not being sexist, it's being realistic"

I'm thinking "sexist"

"i am a feminist, perhaps not a particularly pc one, but i can see that a womans place is at home with her children. "

it's not a travesty at all blueshoes if you are a coulple without a family, or a single women..what is a travesty is when you sacrifice the happiness of your children to pay for it.

My children have benefitted hugely from the childcare I have arranged or them. They have had much more attention, social interaction better nutrition and loads more fun making a mess than if I had kept them home. I also love my work.. Why on earth should I be made to stay at home?

daftpunk, are you being deliberately daft or just inflammatory: "what is a travesty is when you sacrifice the happiness of your children to pay for it."

You think all working women have sacrificed the happiness of their children?? What about fathers - are they important to their children's happiness at all? Yes, YOU are sexist.

I have known guys at work who are sexist and know it. One once said to me after I jokingly referred to him as being sexist "Oh, I don't deny. Everyone knows that I think women belong at home and I admit it"

But your sexism is somehow masquerading under a disquise of being non-pc feminism. And that baffles me beyond words.
Come on. Admit what you are.

Daftpunk - I'm just wondering at what point you think it would be okay for a woman to go back to work. Do we all have to wait until our kids have started full time school, secondary school, left home?
And what about those of us who work from home and try to juggle it around the kids as best we can. Are we making our children unhappy to in your book? Or is it just those that use paid childcare?

daftpunk please elaborate in what way you are a feminist? Because you like women?

We are the same age/generation- everyone I know our age went to c/m or nursery as a child- why? Our mothers were well-educated, highly-qualified teachers, doctors, nhs staff etc who had trained hard and weren't about to give up their careers as soon as children arrived on the scene. The only friends I had whose mums stayed home were friends of British-Asian origin.
Until my father was disabled both my parents worked full-time, they also did 50/50 at home, including childcare for poorly children etc.

I am a FT WOHM. DH is a FT WAHD. He does all the nursery drop-off, pick-up, breakfast, cooks dinner each day, does all washing-up, shopping, etc and any childcare cover for illness.
He works very long hours- as DD does a much-shortened nursery day compared to her 'classmates' usually around 10-4:30, and he still has to fit his work in- he works every evening, often until very late.
He does this because he wants to be a hands-on father, and he wants our life to work for us- this is a great solution for us.

I certainly do not spend 'half my salary' on childcare- I earn a good salary, and so does DH. We are certainly not mortgaged to the hilt, and could live comfortably on one salary if we wished. We have both worked extremely hard however to get where we are, and stopping work at our age would be ridiculous. We held off having children until we were financially secure- and we have experienced times of extreme hardship- working 3 jobs, 7 days a week, DH not taking a salary so we could employ 8 people etc.

I want more for my DC than to sit home, chained to the kitchen sink- I want them to be fulfilled. If they choose to be a homemaker- then that is fine- I just want their happiness. However, what example does it give to my DC if I stay at home their entire lives, subservient to the bread-winner? When they are young adults I would like them to think their mother has something about her, and had actually enjoyed having them rather than resenting them, and had to succumb to a life of domestic drudgery.

My DD adores both of her parents- why is my place 'in the home'?

help me out here...why is it sexist to think a mother should be at home caring for her young children?

Because you don't assume a man should have to do the same.

Hi Athene, all the best with your new job. Hope you will be leaving the likes of your sexist colleagues behind.

I am not very good at being with my DC. I find it hard to play with them and I get frustrated with the chaos they leave in their wake. I look after them and love them a great deal, read to them, take them for days out, talk to them, explain things, but I wouldn't hesitate to admit that their beloved CM probably showed them a much better time than I ever did day in day out. In the messy/making/earth mother sort of way.

Does that mean that I should have stayed at home and beat myself into submission? Or perhaps not had children? Not to mention bagged myself a high-earning alpha male

What is wrong with that daftpunk? The use of the word 'should'. Why 'should' a mother do anything? As opposed to a father.

Thanks, blueshoes. I haven't worked with that guy in many years. So, this stiry doesn't apply to my current colleagues.

EPPM, is 'chained to the kitchen sink... stay[ing] at home their entire lives, subservient to the bread-winner, [without anything about them], succumb[ing] to a life of domestic drudgery' your considered opinion of all SAHPs, or just your assessment of what you would have been like as an SAHP?

My mother was educated to post-grad level, and was the single most intelligen person I've ever met. She chose to stay at home with us when we were pre-schoolers because it was what she wanted to do. Plenty of intelligent people make the same choice.

That "chained to the kitchen sink" line always makes me

DH and I both work. Dishes still need to be done. Just as they would if one of us was able to stay home full time. Instead of spending work hours chained to that damn sink we spend leisure hours there instead. But it is okay, having less time to spend how we choose = more freedom in some minds.

ormirian, why should a mother do anything? what do you mean by that? for gods sake, when a women decides to have a child she takes on a massive responsibility, and yes, it usually is the woman who decides to have children....why should i have a child and expect the father to stay at home while i go out to work?

litchick, working from home is different isn't it. and staying at home until the child is at full time school is about right.

and i just don't get what a c/m or nursery can offer our children that mothers can't?

have we become incapable...do will all need a "key worker" for our baby?