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?

kittywits, you/your life sounds SO much like a fantasy. i have enjoyed reading your posts as much as you have posting them. I can almost sympathise with the need to be "subtly protected" but the last time I seriously wanted that was during my teenage "wouldn't it be nice to marry a rich man to provide for me and I will support him in his glittering career with my feminine talents" sort of way. Now I have my sweet (but high-earning!) housework-mucking dh who has taken my dd out to the Play Gym to give me a chance to post on mn.

BTW, GR is not my idea of a fantasy. More like Keanu Reaves

Mr K, with your black locks and expansive chest, I could go for you. But I am a bit confused about how you get male attention to those areas? I am all woman, erm last I checked, and don't appreciate the competition.

Blueshoes if you had the chance to be 'kept' (I hate that term btw ) by your dp, allowed the freedom to do what you wanted, pursue whatever direction you felt right would you turn it down? I have a great life. As I have said before, Dp pays all the bills, food, kids clothes etc. i have my own private income which i spend on ME and some extraneous stuff for the kids. Blimey I think choosing to look after the house and do some of the childcare including nappies is a bloody good deal. I think there are an awful lot of women out there who would really like being 'kept' I know quite a few who admit to it. I don't know many women like bawc, but i am open- minded enough to know that there are many different sorts of women out there, not all of them are expounding women's rights.

Message withdrawn

Oh God

I have fair hair and small boobs

and all this time I've been thinking I'm a woman

My God, by that definition I'm the man and I think dp nearly qualifies as the woman (hasn't got long hair or big boobs....but does the nappies...)

Bloss, you need to read my 10.24 posting MUCH more carefully, all the way through.

BTW "big boobs" is not what was said, "flat-chested" is the truth of it.

No Bloss, it was actually Mr Kittywits who pointed out he looks like a woman with long black hair. I also find it very confusing and mildly amusing too.
I can hear my DH is out pruning the roses with the kids.....Gawd, what a woman, eh?

Could this be Mr Kitty, perhaps? It might explain why he never has time to do the housework....too busy breastfeeding

Message withdrawn

Franny, I can only repeat, please read the 10.24 posting carefully. In this case, specifically the last sentence and you'll see who's breastfeeding the baby!

Kittywits, you asked "Blueshoes if you had the chance to be 'kept' (I hate that term btw ) by your dp, allowed the freedom to do what you wanted, pursue whatever direction you felt right would you turn it down?"

Me personally? As a giddy teenager, I would say Yes! (BTW I hate "kept' too - "kept" sounds so footballers' wife or WAG). Why not? It is so easy and sounds so seductive.

But as a grizzled ex-career woman, now pt mum, I would ask "What's the trade-off?". And I think that is what the other posters are each asking, in their own way.

I have seen stereotypical marriages in my own parents and my workplace, where the man's earning power so stupendously outstrips the woman's that it makes no sense for any other structure than for the woman to be kept. But it comes at a price ... rigid roles, strangers, affairs, divorce, loneliness, no family life, woman left high and dry, man can't cope with loss of identity when his business collapses. Please I am not saying this is the way your marriage will turn out, but all I am saying is that being kept comes with its risks. I am interested to hear your story because it is the inside take of a success in this kind of arrangement, since both parties seem so content in their divison of labour.

In my case, I had a well-paying established career before I met my dh, had my own investments and savings. All I wanted was a partner to share my life with, a companion in a true sense. Tbh, I would not appreciate it if he took over my investments and started making decisions on it, before or after consulting me. But that's just me. As it is, I have downshifted to a pt role and dh's career is beginning to take off. So who knows, maybe I will at some time join the ranks of kept women - but I will still make financial decisions, ok? And dh will continue to help with housework and childcare.

I've thought a fair bit about this thread over the last day or two and I think I've finally got to what bothers me so much about it

I think KW assumes that because her DH earns a lot of money and has paid help for her to look after the house/children and a big house, that we would all think that an opportunity which we could not turn down.

If you like the price of having a non-fully functioning DH is that she has a lot of material things and a pretty easy life! She can present herself as a SAHM, but in fact using childcare and does her own thing - but feels she can criticise working parents who leave their children with paid help. So okay if you leave them to fart around shopping and having your nails done, but not if you go to work!

What KW seems to struggle with, is that almost no-one else on this thread would think that material things makes up for living in neothandral times! That some people would trade material things for a DH that performs all of societies roles for a man, not just the earning money one.

KW life sounds to me so incredibly vacuous, nothing in it to worry her pretty little head about. Arrggghhhh - would give me a fit of the screeming ab dabs to live like that!

I too have a very high earning DH who provides for hte household lots of material things - however, rather than stay at home and spend my days shuffling from the gym to the beauty parlour, I also work in a very high earning job. In fact DH and I both earn around the same. No one forces me to woth, it is what I choose to do!

My DH has certainly never used his high earning power to persuade me that he doesn't need to trouble himself with domestic chores and child care matters. And he is certainly not lacking in masculinity in any way!

SO no KW, I certainly would not swop my life for yours! I suspect many other people wouldn't either. In fact actually, whilst you appear happy with your choices, I can't help feeling very sorry for you - that your life while rich in material things appears to be so narrow and restricted. Truth if ever it was, that money can't buy you everything!

Message withdrawn

Soapbox:
So, I am a vacuous SAHM? Does that just apply to me or to every other SAHM?
Thanks for enlightening me as to what I do during the day. Do you actually have a clue? Or are making it up?
If you consider looking after 5 kids and running a large house and gardens vacuous then I guess I must be.
So all SAHMs out there: looking after children is vacuous 'cos soapbox says so.

Soapbox, how many more bl**dy times to I have to say that DH and I have worked out our respective roles together. I will not explain this again to anyone who is unable to read the posts properly.

Dh is fully functioning and takes part in many aspects of childcare, he is far from neanderthal as you described him. You are mixing up the jobs he does with MY attitude to woosey (sp) men.
A man who changes nappies or does a bit of house work is not a weakling. IN MY OPINION a man who goes around trying to be the same as a woman is FEMINISED and I find that most unattractive. I've seen plenty of them. I've also come across women who think they have a great relationship with their blokes because they pitch in and all do the house work etc. One friend is a prime example of this. But I've spoken to her bloke, he says that the only reason she thinks they have a great relationship is beacause he does what ever she wants him to to avoid argumments. He wishes he had the guts to stick up for himself more, but is going for the easier option of going along with things. There are others.

Soapbox, there are so many women who, like me, enjoy being able to be in charge of our homes. And when we have time, we pursue areas of interest to make our poor lives less vacuous.

People are always saying how well I'm wearing. Um let me think, could this be because DH and I have managed very successfully to minimise the TOTAL stresses in our lives.
I have talked about money because people have asked about how we manage the lfe we have and money is an intrinsic part of the answer. For the avoidance of doubt, you can't live life our way without a certain amount of money. What I find is that someone asks me a question, then somone else rearranges my words to mean something else! I had someone claiming I had long black hair and big boobs earlier! (Neither of which I have BTW.)

Don't feel sorry for me. My life is rich both in the material sense and in many, many other ways, the two thing are not mutually exclusive, you may not have known.

Bloss, are you in fact two people?

Firstly you write,"...I still think it's kind of weird to think someone is manly because they spend lots of time at work and won't change a nappy..." which is rubbish.

Secondly you write,"There's a certain amount of work that has to be done, and we find it convenient to divide it up so he does the stuff outside the home and I do it inside. And we find it works well to have clearly defined roles as it means we understand our obligations and expectations and we think it's divided equally between us and fairly, so it doesn't really matter whether we have a more or less flexible attitude to divison of the work than anyone else" which is an incredibly articulate exposition of my feelings.

So Bloss, are you in fact two people with one keyboard?

I could be wrong but I think bloss's second quote is how she is articulating a theoretical situation, similar to yours. FYI Bloss works outside the home, I believe.

Kittywits - I know I am not around constantly, but have you any thoughts on my last post? Do you let Mr Kittywits know you'd love him and stand by him if he ever decided to leave the job he hates and downsize a bit? If you don't discuss this scenario with him, is there a reason why?

I think the think I find difficult to swallow is the assumption that your roles are fixed in time - do you see you and Mr Kittywits still taking on this share of tasks in 10 years time? I say this especially as you are a mother of 5 children so presumably will both have a long stretch ahead of having children to care for.

It's just that IME dh and I have switched roles over the 12 years we have been parents - I have been a SAHM, the main breadwinner and at other times both dh and I have both worked outside the home. I think a lot of other families are like this, especially as children get older and are at school.

I repeat something I said earlier - when I was the main breadwinner, and a very stressed one at that - I would have been felt devestated, betrayed and used if dh had told me he intended to spend the rest of his life giving me a comforable home and bringing up our children so I could work harder. Tbh it might well have signalled the end of our relationship as I would have felt I was little more than a means to a financial end.

I would also find a man going around trying to be the same as a woman unattractive, but I have a feeling we would define "trying to be a woman" differently. For me it would probably involve make-up and high heels. Possibly also breast feeding...(LOL Franny).

I don't feel sorry for your friend if he is unhappy in his relationship because they all do housework. I feel sorry for him if he is forced to do more than his partner does, but that's because I don't think it's fair that anyone in a relationship is taken advantage of. And you know, I work with men who are not happy being the sole breadwinner and are always commenting they wish their partners also went out to work and are impressed by my setup. They would love nothing better than being a bigger part of home life, but the wife has monopolised it. This has nothing to do with being feminin or masculin. That's just excuses I think. Its just people who cannot agree about whats best for their family-life and one has been over-ruled.

I too have worked with men who are not happy being the sole breadwinner. It is not outright resentment, but it is there.

Can I also say, if my dh had told me he had CHOSEN to do housework and childcare full time over getting a job, I would have said to him 'no actaully my working wage ENABLES you to do that - it is not something you have total free choice over if you see us as a partnership and want us to stay as one'

The only way my dh could CHOOSE to not bring in a wage is if I first CHOOSE all by myself, (and was lucky enough) to bring in a big enough wage for the family to live on with dh contributing via us not haveing to pay for childcare. Then we'd have the means to agree on a workable choice for both of us.

So ultimately in my family it's the one choosing to work outside the home who lays out the choices for the one staying in the home. Not fair I agree, but blame the fact that housework and childcare are unwaged. That's how it is.

I know things aren't as clear cut what with benefits and not having to pay for childminding if one of you is at home to look after the children - all this has to be factored in. We did our sums and when ds was of school age it made more financial sense for dh to bring in a wage.

KW - to be clear - if they've an army of paid help and nothing to worry their pretty little heads about - then yes, I think it is vaccuous. There are many more people on here with children who I have the utmost regard for, who manage to run large families, their homes without any paid help at all! Those people I do have time for! Some of them even do all that and hold down a ft job!

Running and organising a big house and garden ain't the be all and end all of career options afaiac. There are as you say others who feel differently though.

I have 4 kids and work 4 days a week and don't have any paid help but I would absolutely loathe and detest to be 'kept' by anyone. It would make me feel about 5 years old to be dependant on someone like that.

'that fact that you childrenplay at workinh means nothing atall' Yes it does. Children copy what their parents do and more specifically they identify most with the parent of the same gender as they are. Do I need to explain it further? My girls see their mother go to work and look after them and do house-work. They see their father go to work and look after them and do house-work. For them this is normal (and desirable). It will always be normal (and desirable). They will not suddenly realize at aged 16 (or indeed at 18, 31 or 75) that they may not find a knight in shining armour who is going to protect them, earn the bread and expect them to stay at home, do house-work and reproduce because they will never have seen anything (or anything as influential as their own family) to lead them to believe this will happen. Instead unless something goes horribly wrong they will be independent and confident and proud of being women. And crucially for the billionth time they will not see any activities or spheres as gendered and restricted to only one gender.

Soapbox. I think with my paid help I have an easier life than those who have to struggle on their own. All hats off to those who haven't got paid help. I assume it is because they have chosen to do the work themselves' cos they REALLY like to be up against it?
Or would they have some help if they could afford to have some? What do you think Soapbox? Would that lower them in your estimation?
If you think it makes someone a better person to grind themselves in the ground for the sake of seeming to be valiantly struggling alone then....... well what can I say??
Personally I would rather reduce my work load so that I am not always shattered and can have a better quality of life. I don't intend to be a martyr. But hey we are all different.
What about those people with help who do have things to think about? Does that make them more worthy human beings in your eyes? Does it?
Anyway what's wrong with having nothing to do but paint your nails and go to the gym?
It's pretty rich to be making judgements on the worth of someone else's existence. Who raised you to that rather lofty position?
I rather suspect your comments are fired by deep down resentment and envy.

Tigermoth- I'll rely to you later if that's ok

BAWC :What did your sister see? I'm assuming her role play was entirley different to yours then??
Both my parents are accademics, neither off them a stereo typical gender model, both still work. They showed me their model I made my choice. Your daughters will do the same.