and disloyal to womankind to NOT find this offensive?

[Astrid28]

I am now a SAHM. DH runs his own company and it got to the point where I could give up work if I wanted to. I wanted to, so here I am.

DH transfers money for the food shopping into my account and I also use the joint account for other things, like birthday presents, DD's lessons/pre-school clothes shopping etc.

A friend of mine has described me on several occasions as being an old fashioned housewife.

I laughed and said I suppose I am! She then went on to say that I shouldn't be pleased with the situation. Don't I find my life boring, and what about my life when my kids grow up and leave home - what then?

I'm still very happy with my situation, but should I be?? Am I 'letting the side' down?

'That is clearly not what the OP is doing, she is making a contribution not just by cleaning or looking after DCs but providing back up and emotional support for DH to build something for the family. Without her he could not do that.'

I think that puts it very nicely: Astrid and her husband have achieved equality in their marriage. She said the same - they have a great partnership. Isn't that feminism incarnate ?

I agree that feminism is about a lot more than choice, though of course choice comes into it. I also tend not to think of the whole WOHP/SAHP as about feminism anyway. It's about two equal parents making decisions about the way they live their lives.

In the past, roles tended to be polarised. Women were often not educated to the same level as men, certain professions were closed to them, and maternity rights did not exist. Alongside that, women were taught to cook, sew and clean, while men were not expected to carry out those roles.

In the 21st century, women are educated to the same level as men, they have access to the same professions, and alongside that, men tend to want to do far more hands-on parenting. Couple that with the fact that people tend to partner someone of a similar social/educational standing, and it makes sense that many couples want to have pretty equal roles. I have the same earning power as my DH, and he enjoys being a parent and doing home stuff - cooking etc as much as I do. Therefore we enjoy pretty similar roles. But some people prefer to take on different roles, and if it works for them - fine.

The only thing I think is really not right (and this is what aBetaDad is referring to I think) is when anybody, woman or man, lives their life through, or on the back of, another person. IMO everyone has a responsibility to live an interesting and fulfilling life, and I agree with ABetaDad that a life spent going from coffee to gym to lunch is a pretty vacuous existence.

Ah, but ABatDead, what you're missing is that these days have the option of sitting at home 1950s-style too, while their wives go out and earn pots of money to pay for the 'help'. Back in those good-ol' 1950s, men just didn't have the option to be a SAHD.

I'm not a feminist, I'm an equalitist (just made that up! . If you say that women deserve the same as men, you're missing the important corollary that men deserve the same as women. Everyone deserves the same as each other.

Regardless of gender, everyone, within the contraints of their financial situation, should have the right to choose whether to SAH or WOH, and no matter what your gender, that choice should be seen as valid by society.

Cross posts there annie. I think ABatDead is acknowledging that men do have the option of that existence - sitting at home 1950s style - just making the point that it's not a positive existence or role model!

I would have as little respect for a man who spent his days lunching and going to the gym while his wife worked to pay for his lifestyle, as I would for a woman who does it on her husband's income!

"Could you contribute more? Why did you give up work other than 'because you could'?... Could you contribute more? Why did you give up work other than 'because you could'?"
Abatdead What do you mean by contribute? I suspect you have a narrow and rather money-centered idea of what 'contribution' means in a family's life.

Choice is a funny one because it is completely linked to the financial status of the other person in the relationship.

So comments such as:
'I choose to stay home'
and
'I choose to work even though we can afford for me not to'

only apply if someone else is contributing to the family income.

So the 'choice' that people are talking about are less about politics and feminism and more about it being an economic possibility.

To put it bluntly some women will have less choice due to the income of the other person, or because they are doing it alone.
This has nothing to do with politics or how much of a feminist they are.

Good point. I stay at home because my husband earns enough for me to be able to do so, so I could choose.

ABetaDad - I agree that the women you are talking about (not the OP) are in an unequal relationship & frankly I wouldn't have a lot of respect for such a woman - but it still doesn't mean she loses her 'equality and freedoms'.

This is why I don't like the cliche that women such as the suffragettes 'won' equality for women. To claim it has been won implies that it can be lost. The way I see it, women do have equality with men. What they don't have is universal acceptance of that equality, by men and by society.

Ah but it is still choice. We chose our partners and chose to have children with them. Or not.

Still choices. Some people have less options in some areas and make compromises but we still get to exercise our free will. Thank goodness.

I don't think anyone has to "deserve" freedom, ABatDead. If the couples that you describe are happy, if the men and women alike are both getting something out of the relationships (maybe the dentist gets a huge ego boost from having a fit and trim wife and knowing that his social circle knows they employ a cleaner, etc.) and the financial arrangement they have, who are you to complain? There are still men out there who derive a lot of their sense of identity from being uber-providers. And if they happen to be married to women who are happy to play the role of pampered wife, that's their business.

MarshaBrady, good point, though I would also add that in days gone by it would not have been socially acceptable for a woman to be doing it on her own. My own grandmother was sent to the workhouse with her children when her husband died. In that way although things will never be equal for all (that is just an unrealistic dream) we have come a long way as a society.

math - I see your point. I don't think it's about anyone's right to 'complain' exactly, because on one level I agree with you. If a couple choose to fund their lifestyle that way - one partner working their butt off, and the other keeping trim in the gym and managing the cleaner, then as long as they are paying for that out of the family income, then it's their choice.

I took it more that ABatDead was saying what an empty, vacuous existence. Which I agree with. I also think it's pretty sad for anyone to have such a strong sense of their worth tied up with being the uber-provider.

Yes definitely I think so too Knackered.

Things are so much better now for women who are not in a marriage, or who keep working or whichever path they take.

My mother was quite keen on all three of her girls on being well-educated and having a career so we could be financially independent.

That's a great thing for many reasons; self-esteem, developing the mind, having interests, plus the ability to be financially independent - all good stuff.

Although she will admit (when pushed) that it was 'just in case we didn't find anyone'....

(not much of a feminist my mother).

"Dressing your daughter in pink isn't feminist or not. It's just a colour. You make it a non feminist choice by deciding internally that pink is a girl's colour. "

Yes. I agree. And I did say that dressing your DD in pink 'to make her feminine' was the non-feminine choice not dressing her in pink full stop.

Marsha, but that is an issue of income equality and inequality.

Given that the halves of two couples want to stay at home: just because X (male or female) can afford to stay at home, whereas Y (male or female) cannot afford to stay at home, well, that has nothing to do with feminism at all.

The alternatives differ not because of gender but because of income.

It is all about being able to make choices as men do, without fear or favour. That does not mean that everyone will have the same available alternatives. But the difference should not depend on gender.

And again, surely Dwayne's experience is also a great example of feminism? She has valued her time with DD but isn't trapped by it because she is able to start her own business and the plan is to allow her DH to have more time at home too. Everyone wins (which women didn't when they were bound by society to stay at home instead of having the choice).

Abatdead I am interested in your perception of the woman who "contributes virtually nothing?.

My DC's both go to private school (although I?m not sure why that makes a difference to the equation) and I have full time help (we live abroad it's very normal blah, blah, blah).

I find the idea that if I don't clean the house full time I am contributing "nothing" offensive. I consider my role as a wife and mother far more than that of a live in domestic.

The fact that I don?t work makes it easier for my DH to excel at his career. At one point we both worked in ?highflying? careers, whilst our two very young children were cared for by a nanny. Frankly it was a tough life with neither of us performing our role as parents or employees particularly spectacularly. We both earned very similar salaries but whilst I quite liked the idea of (initially) scaling back work and then (later) giving up, he didn?t.

The fact that I am around more makes my husband happier. That we only have to take into account the time he works, means we spend more time together and have more fun.

The fact that I organise his home life for him (even if I don?t actually iron his shirts or pick up his dry cleaning myself) means that his time at home can be devoted to doing what he wants rather than what would otherwise need to be done.

I consider DH and I to be a great team and we love each other, so weird as this might sound we like making each other happy. I am happy not working and DH is happy that I am happy. He certainly doesn?t feel that he is taken advantage of. To me support and happiness is what a marriage is all about.

(to the OP - not read anything else yet)

What a rude friend! I'm sure there's a hint of jealousy there.

It is blardy complicated and stressful trying to combine work, home and family life as a woman, and if for a few years (or longer) you decide to simplify things so that you can focus more on certain aspects, why not? Good for you.

So what is the dentist getting out of it, if his wife contributes nothing?

Well, I used to laugh at my mum and dad encouraging us to train for some career we could manage from home, but they were actually quite practical, as it turns out. The last thing I would ever call my dad is feminist, but he certainly knew that a woman was not free unless she had her own purse strings. However, the question of choosing how one will make a contribution to the home is up to the parties concerned, imo. The regard, or actually lack thereof, for a non-earning SAHM or SAHD's contribution is a problem that arises when 'contribution' is narrowly defined. Funny enough, the law recognises a SAHP's intangible contribution to the family.

Interesting Orm, excuse me I didn't register that bit. It's only in the area of upbringing that I think hmm I'm not sure what I think here. When do we accord girls the right to make those choices?

For example: I don't care about dolls and pink and so on. I do care about discouraging girls from science and about girls making their own choices about boys and sex.

I wish this was a conversation actually. I feel I'm sure about what feminism means to an adult woman but when it comes to bringing up I'm in the throes (with an early teen at home) of working out how to accord choice to the girl but withholding choice from the child.

Are we responsible for our choices though when they impact on other women? When a woman decides to opt for the home-maker role (apologies for the term) when she is 17, when all the other women in the area/family she is from do the same, is she reinforcing the stereotype and expectations for other women? Or when she opts not to go onto further education. Or chooses to have a baby. Or stay with a man who abuses her.
Does every choice we make have an effect on other women?

BTW I don't know that that is the case I was just wondering aloud.

What i meant is that i would rather look after my child myself than to put them in a nursery/childminder, i am able to do this, but not everone is able to and needs to work. Of course they are not strangers for long but its still someone outside the immediate family. Abtdad why should it bother you what each partner does as long as they are both happy with the arrangement, if they are not than yes its a problem. when my dd starts school in 1.5 years time i plan to get a part time job around it, but its hard in this climate to find one to fit round school hours. I do have a strong work ethic and would like to work when i can

Yes, but only in the same way that every man's choice has an effect on other men. So we have equality of opportunity to be misguided by our own sex.

it is quite hard to stay on logic's perilous path here