why are some women content to do all the housework?

[honeydew]

I meet lots of mums in my local area who, like me, are stay at home mums with very young children but are prepared to do absolutely everything for their partners and DH's! They slave away cooking, cleaning and washing at home with no help and at the weekends, they still don't expect
their partners to do anything! I have friends who never get a proper break from their children, even if it's only for a couple of hours. Their DH's leave them to it 24/7. Is it just me who has found that old style patriarchy is alive and well in society once a woman gives up work to raise her brood? My DH does help me with baby DS, he also puts my older daughter to bed and washes up after I've cooked each night, so we work as a team. So many women I speak to say that their DH's are not 'hands on' parents and do virtually all the chores and baby changing/feeding. Oviously, if one partner is working during the week they can't do that much, but some men don't want to contribute at all it would seem! Are they just lazy or simply 'expect' women to fulfill that role?

' feel if we continue to push women out to work by spending loads of money on childcare provision etc (which I am all for as well) without supporting (not really financially but at least verbally) the value of SAHM, childcare etc etc This role will continue to be undervalued in 'society'.' Women have always worked Crunchie, 100 yrs ago it was only the very privileged who didn't. Once extended families made it easier for women to do this. Child-care provision now makes it easier for women to work but it doesn't force or even encourage them to. Mercifully, that is still their choice. And I absolutely agree that that should always be the case.

kitty - you seem like a lovely pussy. - now how about those parents - like me - who have to work for a living or go on benefits.

now, do you think the rest of sciety should pay for me whilst i stay at home?

and do you concede that for some people the isue of choice is non existant?

are you therefore saying that if you are not prepared to save money so you can stay at home with your children and give up work - then you shouldnt be allowed children?

are only people who can afford to stay at home - those with the choice allowed children?

what about those paretns who truly want children - hen have them and find the experience traumatic. what about those parents who think they are going to love being with their children but actually hate it - they wern't phychic -p how were they to know they were going to dislike their own children?

what about those people who have children and discover that their maternal side has not appreared.

wha about those people who have 5 children on benefits and stay at home all day to look after them.

is this better? is this a better role model than seeing your parents go to work?

so to recap

who should have children? only those who can afford to stay at home?

for some THERE IS NO CHOICE work to eat.

its better to give up work go on benefits and let the rest of society pay for me whilst i be perfect partent for 5 years?

those parents who suddenly find that they dont like it. - you can't shove it back in

Thanks, Kittwit I can now add 'outrageous' to the list of insults that have been hurled at me here. Please remember that there are real people with real feelings on here. I have become slightly thicker skinned over the last few days. Others might be truly hurt by your comments.

"Caligula, you may be right that employers get pissed off with time taken off work to look after sick kids but surely this is something that affects dads too?? If not then it should. Last time my dd2 was ill dp took time off work because it was my last wk of term and I had stuff other people were depending on me finishing. Next time it might be me. We negotiate and we share responsibility and we try to lessen the impact on both our employers. Common sense, no? "

B&WCat - are you really this naive? It seems to me that you and your DP are living in an egalitarian utopia. But not everyone else is? Don't you understand that?

FWIW I don't form my opinions out of bitterness because I don't have the same set-up as you, because I live a similar set-up. DH being a teacher means he has the privilege of more time at home with our DDs. He supports and values me as a SAHM and valued me when I was a working mum. We work as a team to ensure all domestic task and childcare is taken care of. He allows me plenty of time to myself and time to study. It couldn't be much better for me and I am grateful for that. Life would have been so different if I wasn't married to a teacher.

But I know it is not like this for many of my friends who work/SAH. Their partners' jobs/careers are not so compatable with family life, and my friends, whether they work or don't work, take on most or all of the responsibility for keeping their children and home clean, fed and nurtured.

Gem and Soapbox, you are wonderful. Gem, I think your point about expectations is really, really important. As I said, we v often follow what our parents did in terms of parenting, education etc. My dd1 aged 4 recently said that when she grew up she was going to go to work and she often plays at going to work. When I thought about this I was really delighted but it also made me realize just how important we are as role models without even trying or being aware of it. Now if daughters see their mothers cleaning and looking after their families all day and sons see their dads going to work and doing no house-work all day then that is what they will expect for themselves. You and they may be happy with that as may be their partners and kids in which case fine but if you and they are not then they will have to struggle to break the mould. It won't just happen by itself. And that's what I mean when I say I am saddened by SOME of my students' expectations - girls often don't aspire to a huge amount academically or career-wise and boys think they can rule the world without really trying and without taking any domestic responsibilities.

'B&WCat - are you really this naive? It seems to me that you and your DP are living in an egalitarian utopia. But not everyone else is? Don't you understand that?' Beattie, this is unfair. If you read my post again you will see that I have said I know my workplace is unusual, and yes I am lucky. I have made it perfectly clear that I know my experience will not be the same for everyone and I also said it SHOULd be.

And although I quite clearly stated that my situation is not typical it is also not unique. Why is it considered totally naive for dads to take time off work for sick kids? It's that attitude that needs challenging because it's that attitude that is preventing them. Legally, they are entitled to just as much as mums.

I think the minute you have children somebody is going to have to make a compromise. Because I work part-time and want to be able to pick my son up from nursery at 5.30 everyday, I am limited in the types of job I can do in my company. That is not about inequality - that is the nature of my job. I am therefore not taking full advantage of the career opportunities and salary rewards available to somebody of my qualifications and experience. This will have an effect on my long term pension and total remuneration over my career. Looking forward, I certainly won't be able to stay in the same job and have summer holidays, half terms etc. etc. off. DH works full-time, has a long commute and is often out of the country so generally he can't do drop offs and pickups and odd days childcare here and there. On the other hand, he earns more than me, so it makes sense for him to do most of the paid work. For other people in different situations the compromise that they make may be that one parent stays at home full time while their children can't be left home alone and need to be collected from school. Either way, a compromise is being made. As long as people have thought through the implications of what they choose to do, why should anybody else critiscize their choice? Not everybody has children with somebody with a job where it makes sense for them to both go out to work.

Out of interest, with regard to pensions, most people don't get final salary pensions anyway, so what is there to stop the earning partner paying into a pension scheme for the non-earning partner/make up NI contributions?

The thing is, what can we do to change the situation and get our lovely egalitarian utopia?

Read up on what they do in other countries
lobby local politicians and make a fuss, join groups etc?
teach your own kids to have wide aspirations?
show your kids by example? try your damndest to find a family friendly company, be strong in your demands that your husband supports your career aspirations as much as he does his?

I am sort of a believer that we already have quite a lot of choice, and that you can try to create the best possible world for you. We live in one of the richest countries in the world, there is bags of social help and opportunities, lots of educational opportunities, a free health service, distance learning, Open Uni etc, and a thriving job market (i've just to look around at the people here in Kazakhstan and the shit life most of them have).

Of course the state has to do more to promote family friendly policies and support people: but people have to make the effort as well, and also acknowledge that most of us will have barely any pension and if you don't earn your own living you are in a risky situation. After all, society can only change when individuals do; things have moved on but not enough! Personally, I couldn't be happy being financially dependent on a man and not having my own career, however good a mum I was, because rightly or wrongly, I have been given the expectation that I deserve a big ole career in the outside world, just like a man, and I can see that society (again rightly or wrongly) values that.

Also we could be challenging assumptions more, like very common but insidious assumptions like paying for childcare out of the woman's salary, which often happens, because it's seen as her responsibility.

I think you are naive because whilst you live the perfect egalitarian life and wish the rest of society to be this way too (which is of course a good thing) you seem completely blinkered over the ways to achieve this. Your solution is the 1970s feminist solution that in order for women to achieve equality they have to act like men.

My position is that in order to achieve this you have to get men to act like women! You're never going to get the majority of men to lessen their work hours and take on more responisibility for domestic tasks and their childrens' care whilst people like you UNDERVALUE and UNDERMINE the roles of looking after children and looking after the house!!!!!

That was in response to B&WCat BTW. And I am sorry to be seemingly vilifying you but you keep quite spectacularly missing the point.

but in other European countries they manage it, mainly through getting better paternal leave options and truly family friendly policies. There's nothing 1970s about it, it's working here and now. It's just that we haven't quite got there yet. It's not a reason not to try and improve things!

I am quite happy to be financially dependend on my DH because in the past he has been financially dependent on me - we are a team

If you are discussing pensions, why not inheritance or lottery winnings? how do you stand on a working partner sharing other sources of income with a non working partner? It might have an obvious answer - a couple should share everything - but if you do believe this, then where does the pensions argument fit with this?

I don't think there is a black and white answer to how pensions should be organised. If a working partner is happy for the non working partner not to work and feels the non working partner contributes a lot to the family, then IMO it stands to reason that pensions should be joint, even if only one 'pays' for it. If the working partner feels the SAHM partner is a drain on family resources and doesn't give anything back, then yes, it's unfair that one works to give both a pension. But if as a working partner you do not want to support your non working partner in old age, then you relationship is in deep trouble anyway.

BAWC you mentioned one thing in your last post to me about 100 years ago, only the very privilaged didn't work.

I suppose I had better explain a bit about my background and my current life. My mum never worked, my dad earnt enough and she never had to. None of my friends mums worked that I can remember. However they all did more 'work' than anyone I knew without a job. My mum worked at teh CAB for 20 years, she did accounts for a charity, ferryed various things/people around etc etc. My Dh comes from a similar background. Of our long time friends, none of the wives work (I am the only full-time working mum) They don't have to as they are in privilaged postions where their husbands earn enough that they can choose NOT to work. All of these are women with school aged kids. Also an odd fact about this group of friends is that not one of them is divorced!!! except my best friend, but I never knew her married IYKWIM

I live in a nice village where hardly any of the mums work. I went to dinner with the mums of dd1 class (year 2) I was the only one working full time!! Some worked part time, most were SAHM.

So can you see I live in a rare place in this world, but when you were 'apparently' suggesting that SAHM with school aged kids may possibly not contribute ANYTHING to society, you are actually slagging my mum, my mil and most of my friends and neighbours!! Now can you see why I got cross??

I don't have the privialge of the choice they all have, I HAVE to work dh is an actor and suffers from long term depression, so he is in and out of work (not always around to look after the children) But at least he does the housework when he is not working

I hope we do get there GemmityGem but then we haven't even got to the point of paying women the sdame as men yet have we... so I do wonder.

And I just don't think it is helpful for women to be so polarised over these issues. Life for mothers (and fathers) isn't that black and white.

I have a friend whose husband works for the UN - he spends half his time out of the country - most of it difficult to plan for as he often doesn't know which country he will be in from one country to the next. They have kids age 6 and 7 - she worked full time right through from end of maternity leave until last year, changing jobs along the way to get a more "flexible" employer. It just didn't work, especially when the children got a particularly bad bout of illness and there was a 6 week period when she was constantly taking time off work. The "flexible" employer's patience ran thin, and she had used up all of her "we understand" quota from them.

She's not in paid employment at the moment - they realised as a family this was better because of their circumstances for now and yes they can afford to do it. Her dh has a good salary, not stellar, but good and I suspect his taxes more than make up for the fact that she is not currently paying any.

It doesn't even occur to me to think she has it cushy - I'm pleased for her because she's not on the edge of a nervous breakdown anymore and when I'm back at work in a few months time, I won't be thinking she's a lazy bint for not working outside the home.

Last one before I go till this pm. Crunchie you said 'It just riled me when I felt that someone who says they 'care' about SAHM and their long term prospects, didn't appear to see that it is not such a bad thing to be. And it shouldn't be seen as the wrong choice. That's all' You don't need to look for any hidden meanings in my posts. It is fairly black and white.

Why can't you accept that I genuinely do care about SAHMs and their long-term prospects and see this as a good thing? And I have agreed with you that women should be entitled to choice and there are no 'wrong' choices as far as I can see.

But we all have people and occupations (not just careers I mean how we fill our time) that we admire more than others and that's allowed. For example, I admire doctors (particularly those who work in disaster zones) more than teachers and I don't admire the one-legged, drug-deeling pimp who lives in the telephone box down the road at all. I also have my own PERSONAL value scale of how much people contribute to the greater good (to society as a whole) with the one-legged, drug-deeling pimp being at zero and doctors in war zones at 10. I know this is SUBJECTIVE. You may have the SAHM at 10 and teachers at 1 and that's fine. In reality it's impossible to judge one person as being more worthy than any one else. We do the lifeboat activity with our students (who would you throw off the sinking ship first if your life depended it) and it's impossible. Life is an ethical minefield but we're all entitled to our own thoughts, feelings and opinions without being attacked. If I've been insensitive in how I'm expressed some of mine then I'm sorry but I don't feel I've deserved the really bitchy response I've got from some of you.

'I think you are naive because whilst you live the perfect egalitarian life and wish the rest of society to be this way too (which is of course a good thing) you seem completely blinkered over the ways to achieve this. Your solution is the 1970s feminist solution that in order for women to achieve equality they have to act like men'

This makes me quite angry Beattie. I have never said that I have a 'perfect egalitarian life' In fact, more than once I have said this is not the case. How can you make such assumptions about me?? And wishing society would be better is not the same as believing it to be so and therefore is not naive. Neither have I ever said that women need to act like men to achieve equality and that is very very far from what I think or believe. It is unfair to accuse people of saying or thinking things they don't.

But you think the only way to contribute to scoiety is by making £££££s.

'My position is that in order to achieve this you have to get men to act like women!'

You're still classifying work according to gender stereo types. I'm saying if you see paid and house work as gender neutral and share them we'd have a healtheri society and healthier relationships.

'You're never going to get the majority of men to lessen their work hours and take on more responisibility for domestic tasks and their childrens' care whilst people like you UNDERVALUE and UNDERMINE the roles of looking after children and looking after the house!!!!!'

If you read my posts you will see that I have used the word VALUABLE many times to describe looking after children. You'll have to read my threads again if you want ot know what I think about looking after the house cos I can't be bothered to repeat them again.

'But you think the only way to contribute to scoiety is by making £££££s.' Rubbish, I've never said that. In fact I'm not a big fan of making money for the sake of it. I said people can contribute to society through taxes and also through looking after kids and also through jobs like nursing or whatever. What's there to argue with?? Check your facts before posting.

'My position is that in order to achieve this you have to get men to act like women!'

B&WCat "You're still classifying work according to gender stereo types. I'm saying if you see paid and house work as gender neutral and share them we'd have a healtheri society and healthier relationships."

But housework and childcare isn't generally seen as gender neutral, even if me and you choose to see it that way. Saying you'd like these things to be equal is great but how do you achieve that?

Gem, you talk sense. Crunchie, it's helpful to know your background. I probably have expressed my views without thinking sensitively enough about real people's feelings on the subject but the same could be said about others here too who are coming from different points of view. TBH I've been really dis-heartened and depressed by some of the vicious attacks about WOHMs and me personally. If you and me are at the point when we can discuss things calmly without making assumptions then that's good.

"Rubbish, I've never said that. In fact I'm not a big fan of making money for the sake of it. I said people can contribute to society through taxes and also through looking after kids and also through jobs like nursing or whatever. What's there to argue with?? Check your facts before posting."

So who is more valuable to society? A woman who earns just enough to pay childcare and takes no money home or a woman who works not quite enough to qualify for paying tax?

Are you really going to make me go back through this whole debate and find the plentiful quotes where you say women that are at home with their children are contributing nothing to society?!