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.

Anniemac - they were from families of upper-middle class professionals - solicitors, doctors, architects and civil servants. So not terribly rich, but probably fairly thoughtful about society and prone to reflecting on the rights of minority groups and the disposessed. And so daughters got opportunities as well as sons.

I completely agree with your sentiment that it is in no way a failure of feminism that women still do the bulk of childcare and largely manage/execute the domestic side of life; and I also agree that economics has a great deal to do with opportunity.

anniemac you are right. equality of opportunity, that is whats lackingand itdoes largely rely on whether you are rich or poor.

i know i can rely on you fio - a sane voicewhen these threads come around ..again.

When it comes to both partners working and the woman getting stressed out because she is still expected to do most of the domestic work (as per the OP) I do find myself coming over all Xenia.

Who exactly is forcing you? I have never known my boss or colleagues to take an interest in my domestic abilities. The government does not snoop around the houses of the electorate to check that the little woman is wearing the apron. Unless you are single or your partner disabled, it boils down to a personal arrangement with your partner. In other words, only you and him are responsible. Not the expectations of society, not anything else.

This is the sort of thing that it might be provident to look into before you have children, not moan about afterwards.

I do feel very about all the posts on MN stating that the woman has to be in charge because men are so feckless/incompetent/helpless. Well, if that's how you feel about them and if you insist that you have to set the standards of housework and take it away from him the moment he doesn't meet them- then obviously, you have made your choice. If you're happy, fine.

But if you don't like it, if you feel this is where things are going wrong, then renegotiate the contract. You can't expect society to pop in and sort it out for you.

There's no question that societies are improved by the presence of women in senior positions. Just one example--the fact that banks and financial institutions which had women at senior levels were less likely to take foolish risks and go bust.

Yes, it IS hard to juggle it all. But I couldn't bear to wave good-bye to my children when they go off to university and have nothing left in my life. My work is for me.

when i had my baby i was solvent,working FT and mortgage on my flat/why would i give that up?i work damn hard to be solvent,work hard in my career being a mum is nor a giving things up compeptition.

maybe for some it was a straight i want to be at home FT choice,fair enough.but i think we have a myriad of choices and essentially should be accepting we all have individual differences
this whole martyr mum i gave up my home,sold a kidney,dont switch on the heating,eat value beans...so that strangers/wolves/reprobates dont watch my lol causing me to miss precious moments. yadda yadda.

well not me i want to maintain being solvent,having a mortagage,having a career.

i grew up in a poor family,council scheme,never having much and living from month to month. i have no desire to replicate this. my parents both worked FT and encouraged me to be solvent,stick in at school etc

i was the 1st person in my family to go to uni.as class and societal expectations dictated usuallly poor working class people didnt go to uni or attain professional jobs

yes class and gender barrier still hinder progress,and that needs addressing

but we benefit from
free secondary state education
unrestricted access to uni
free health care
free contraception
changing societal norms
overall liberal society

One thing that has improved immensely is women's bargaining position. A woman who wanted to argue for a more equal division of domestic work 150 years ago would have been in an extremely weak position: her husband would simply have pointed to the fact that noone does these things. This is no longer true. We can negotiate in our relationships. Whether we choose to is a different matter. But we shouldn't blame others for our choices.

Admittedly, there are choices life throws at us. If you have a disabled child, it limits the choices of the family as a whole: you may not have any choice but to let the highest earner go to work and the other partner to stay at home. And if you are singe with a disabled child, it may well mean benefits.

Absolutely, Scottishmummy, just the fact that almost anyone in the UK has the opportunities you listed puts things in perspective when you compare with other countries (of which there are many many who don't meet those standards).

I cannot abide by 'oh hard done by me' whinging. Want to have children? Your choice. Want to go to work or stay at home? Your choice. At least you have theoretical choice - whether or not your circumstances make it desirable or feasible to exercise it. You make your bed, and what a relatively comfortable bed it is, built by the trailblazing women (and enlightened men) that came before you in their generation.

cory - I completely agree that women's negotiating position has improved - but surely that is also and perhaps principally due to women being more educated, and therefore having developed better negotiation skills (and I still think that there is room for improvement here)?

Again, disabled people were treated better in the past when their families were economically in a better position to support them and compassionate.

Heidi
What Katy Did
The Secret Garden
Little House on the Prairie

all give insights into the treatment of disability among the rich and/or enlightened in the 19th century.

And come to think of it, the reason I decided to stay at home part-time to be available for disabled dd was not because I have superior nurturing qualities, but because I am better educated than dh. Therefore better able to be her advocate, to conduct the appeals needed to get her an education, to attend endless medical appointments, to negotiate with the medical profession, to deal with those professionals who kept telling us that her problems were due to social dysfunction, not a physical condition. I have good reason to believe that if I had not had those rhetorical skills, dd might well have been taken into care and would almost certainly have been left in a school where she could not access the classrooms. Looking after a disabled child can be highly qualified work. It's just not highly paid.

sorry disagree,DDA and various employmment and social legislation have sought to improve quality of life for disabled individuals

these rights include employer making reasonable adaptations to work place
recourse to complain about discrimination
state pays for carers and respite
enhanced medical/care intervetions
community OT/Physio etc
respite provision

we still have huge way to go BUT there has been progress

Heidi and The Secret Garden very strongly suggest that disability is to do with hysteria and a lack of contact with the simply pure people. I hated those films when my dd was struggling to get a diagnosis.

Read the books, don't look at the films (which are only ever one interpretation of what are exceptional texts). And look at them in their historical context.

I have, Anna, and they are very good books.

But there are still lots of doctors who believe that any unexplained pain/mobility problems must be due to a child having been spoilt and overindulged .

which disabled were treated better.certainly not the disabled children of working classes in menial posts

heidi et al is hardly a grimy realistic account is it

Dd was watching those films in hospital while the consultant was taking me to one side to talk about her perception problems

Things don't have to be "grimy" to be "realistic". All "real life" is not horror. And when art is about things that are universally dreadful, its point can be rather lost - not seeing the wood for the trees etc.

Equality means right to vote, education & work.

I'm a sahm & imho the most important job is look after the family so I've chosen to do this. Before kids I had a well paid job but I decided that it was more important to bf & look after my kids than a salary. I had the choice so I took it.

late to this thread and not having read all the posts, but in response to the OP, yes I agree.

With the cost of housing being what it is, either two incomes or single parent benefits are usually necessary to manage. Most of us don't have any choice about being SAHM. Between ourselves and our DPs we must manage the household and childcare while holding down two full time jobs. And allowances are not really made for the domestic work involved.

It was perhaps always that way for working class women. Maybe the illusion is that with our degrees and professional titles we are anything but wage slaves. I think most women would prefer that they did not need to work. And I think most feel more personal responsibility for the state of the house and children than their DPs for largely cultural reasons.

obviously, there are a fair few women (and men) who don't have the choice of being SAHPs for economic reasons. But we do have choices about the labour division in our own homes.