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?

Do you think then that these thousands of tribal socities (who have all developed in a very similar way, despite often being thousands of miles apert,) haven't quite got the idea?

i think they have the idea as well as we do - the idea of choice.

yes am thinking that in a tribal society choice isn't freely available. get hitched to somone strong who can provide for a family and or place within the hierarchy of tribe ...or be castugated and or die.

which really has fuck all to do with being all mother earthy and more to do with survival and primitive tribal social orders.

as previously mentioned. in western society some women do not have a choice either. they have to work becuase they absolutley need to go out and earn money to feed family.

"I go to Television Centre to edit a report for the Ten O'Clock News. The producer and picture-editor are friends of mine, intelligent and sensitive, yet distinctly blokeish. As we sit in the darkness of the cutting-room one of them mentions the picture of Dee, baby and me which appeared in yesterday's paper - snatched without our knowledge or agreement by someone with a camera.

What type of baby buggy do we have? Mamas and Papas, I say, feeling faintly awkward. Ah, says the producer, we have a Maclaren. The picture editor has a third type. We all seem to prefer our own. Once we might have talked cars; now we are talking prams. Then the conversation turns to nappies, and thence to bum creams. What type do I use? Apparently there's a better type, in a tube not a tub. I make a note of it. Even blokeish blokes change nappies now.

Men are different now. In 1969 and 1971, when my first wife had Julia and Eleanor, I regarded myself as a new breed of husband. I was present at both the births in spite of the midwife's resistance, I was happy to do the feeding and I was prepared if necessary to change the odd nappy. But I was clumsy, so I found the business of folding the thick terry-towelling very awkward. I jabbed the safety-pins into the babies or myself. All my nappies leaked. I was soon taken off that particular duty.

Nowadays nappy-changing is unrecognisably easy, and there are places everywhere to do it. And no one even looks when I feed Rafe in public."

John Simpson, war reporter.

I don't particularly want to bring the thread back to nappy changing. My point is that carrying out necessary, fairly straightforward childcare and household tasks doesn't have to damage anybody's sense of self. I haven't met John Simpson, but I think his views are fairly typical.

Re: jumping into bed with people, I have no idea how you can say somebody is masculine/feminine or does/doesn't do housework and is therefore sexy. Gordon Ramsay has probably done far more washing up than many MNer's. Why is it appropriate that he should wash up and get paid for it, but not wash up in his own home? Its just a job that needs to be done. Meanwhile, I am sure Elton John provides very well for David Furnish. That doesn't make him masculine.

I don't think anyone has argued against that point.

what point are you arguing?

Again MP you are mixing up MY feelings about what feminises men and how my dp and I have agreed to divide labour.
They are two very separate points.

BAWC wrote "More confused than ever. KW and Mr KW which one of you has the long-flowing hair and the chest which receives lots of attention? If either?"

BAWC quoted Mr K "I still get attention to my chest area which I guess we all find very embarassing".

Mr K wrote: "You can't spot the difference? BAWC decided to add her own nuance. The difference in phraseology is small, the difference meaning is large."

Are you objecting to the word lots? Is the amount of attention your chest receives conducive to this debate?

Mr K wrote "Beatie, just read your 8.44 post. "Most surveys I read about what women find attractive in a man has intelligence and sense of humour at the top of the list." Yes, I'm sure you're right, I guess most surveys do say that. Rubbish though isn't it? I'll ask you the question, do you go for a man with good sense of humour and intelligence? Or one you want to jump into bed with?"

When I was old enough to be looking for a partner with whom to settle down and start a family, (my idea of) physical attraction alone was not enough. I don't believe that partnerships based on sex, and nothing more, will be life-long partnerships.

That the thrust of 99% of the discussions here is that the way our society now considers the role of men and women is the right way.
No, it is only ONE way.

Kittywits - Can you explain why it bothers you so much that people here do not share your opinion of what roles a man and woman should undertake in a marriage?

people arn't arguing against that surely - here must be more to it.

i havent got time to rad thread - i have to go to work to feed family so they ont starve and to cloth them so they do not get socially castugated by the secondary school tribe.

so go on - there must be more to it than that

isn't kitty saying is just one way of living - not the right way?

I wrote "More confused than ever. KW and Mr KW which one of you has the long-flowing hair and the chest which receives lots of attention? If either?"

I quoted Mr K "I still get attention to my chest area which I guess we all find very embarassing".

I'm still not getting the nuances which I've added to largely alter the meaning of your original statement about your chest Mr K. Please explain. KW? Mr KW? Anyone?

Also, to reinforce the idea that everyone's idea of masculinity is subjective. There are SOME women and indeed men (not my opinion and I'm not speaking for everyone here) who find men wearing their hair long slightly, how shall I put this, effeminate. Now I really don't know whether Mr KW has got long flowing hair or not (because I find some of his and KW's posts really quite confusing and I don't know what to believe of what they've said) but just supposing he did have and his wife found him really very masculine. Equally, SOME people might think the sort of man who gets lots of attention from other men (some of whom think he looks like a woman) might be gay (not what I think just saying some might think this). So, what some people think makes a man masculine is what other people might think makes a man not so masculine. There we go. Subjective, subjective, subjective.

Thats the right way i meant

Kitty, can you clarify? Are you saying then that it is you and only you who thinks a man doing housework and nappychanging is effeminate (doing women's work) but your DP doesn't think this and wouldn't mind doing housework or nappy changing and wouldn't feel that this would damage his sense of his masculinity?

Actually I rate intelligence and sense of humour and lots of other things very highly in choosing a partner. There aren't many women surely who can jump into bed with a man purely because of his looks. Or at least if they do and he didn't have any of aforesaid qualities they would jump right back out again the next morning.

nor really sure what the masculinity of her husband has to do with anything. he could wear pink courderoy and sell flowers for a living - she could be at home becuase thats how they think their family works best. i'm gla they have a choice in the matter.

Custardo, you've missed a chunk of the thread. Earlier, Kitty was saying that a man who does housework is in her eyes effeminate. Many men have had 'the stuffing knocked out of them' or are unhappy because their wives expect them to do housework. etc and men are going to start fighting back apparently.

Kittywits - I am as confused as everyone else. Do you and/or your DP object to any woman who has children going out to work for a living?

ahhh then i am confused i thought she was defending her way of life

Mr Kittywits:

Congratulations BAWC, you got my point in the end. I was challenging others views of what makes a man masculine and I may just have succeeded. (I was specifically challenging the 4 people I quoted.)

KW, if all you had talked about was your and your husband's division of labour, I don't think anybody would still be disagreeing with you.

You have also argued that men are feminized and secretly resentful about doing work around the home. You have not said: "My friend X (who incidentally I think should talk more to his wife and less to you) feels that he is taken advantage of his wife, but thats his problem", you have extended his problem to be a problem of society.

Moreover, in your opinion, it seems, that a man is masculine if he 'keeps' his wife. Great! I am glad you have found Mr KW - it seems a great match. I am just pointing out that for me it is neither here nor there, hence example of Elton John.

Custardo, this was Kittywit's starting position though I think she has apologised for it since and changed her mind or been more careful about how she expresses it since then:

'I reckon the mother , by evolution, is the best caregiver. I know there are women who have no choice and have to go back to work when they don't want to and that is awful for them. What really p*es me off is those women who CHOOSE to go back to work and put their poor kids in day care!!!
I think it's outrageous. Why did they bother having kids if they can't be bothered to give them the care and support they need. I know a woman who has done this twice and her excuse is that she would go mad looking after them. What the hell is she doing having them if it doesn't suit her. These are not pets you can leave in the kennels when you go on holiday.
I think kids suffer if there is not a parent, pref mother staying at home.
yep and I know this is really going to piss people off. I have seen so many kids 'abandoned' by working parents at school. Those parents are too busy/ tired to take part in their kids' school life and the kids look really sad about it.'

'Congratulations BAWC, you got my point in the end.'

No, I haven't got your point Mr KW. Please help me. I may have an MA in English but I find it very difficult to decipher your arguments.

1. Are you a man?
2. Do you have long black flowing hair?
3. Do you have a chest which attracts attention from other men? Why (is it because you have boobs or pectorals?)
4. Do you look like a woman?

I wouldn't normally ask these questions to a stranger. It's just that I think you said that some of the above were true and then you said they weren't or something.

thionk the problem with that is you can't possibly be psychic. how are you to know when you have a child that your not going to detest every living breathing moment of it. contemplete - nay dream of walking out and just walking and walking and walking. how is one supposed to know that you would have PND so bad that you are prescribed prozac. and have a loathing for oneself far more that anyone in society could possibly have of you becuase the guilt is so overwhelming.

How could one know that going back to work saves a marriage, a sanity and the memories and experiences of the children and family?

one cannot know these things. indeed one doesn't anticipate these things at such a happy time ( what is supposed to be) in ones life.

I think everyone (or most people) here are perfectly delighted that Kitty and Mr Kitty are enjoying their lifestyle (except that Mr Kitty isn't enjoying his work or his long hours so that's not so good). But

1. Most of us would not want this lifestyle and 'division of labour' ourselves.

2. Some of us (me anyway and I think Beattie) would question the kinds of messages Kitty's 5 children are getting (by modelling or by what they are told explicitly though Kitty has said she doesn't express the same views to them as she does to us) about men and women's roles and expectations.

3. Many of us object to Kittywits' opinions about WOHMs and men who get involved in housewor.

Am I right?

Yes, I'm delighted that MrK and Kittywits enjoy their life.

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes (and I hold that position as a current SAHM