Can you be a feminist housewife?

[wigglybeezer]

Can you be a feminist if you don't have a career but your DH does, especially if this situation has been going on for a long time (13 years in my case)?

I don't feel downtrodden by the way, merely a bit bored and lacking in choice ATM. I earn a small amount of money, so don't have to ask DH for everything but I'm wondering if my Granny (who was a hospital consultant) was a better feminist than me. I just found a photo of her and her pals at medical school where she has noted on the back that there were 18 female medical students out of 180!

I've always had rosey glasses for how Scandinavians run their social systems - probably with a high degree of ignorance. Do they have it better than the UK?

Where in the world do they have the balance right?

the country is economically on its knees without asking other people to pay for someone else individual choice to be a housewife

so would i submit an hourly timesheet too for tasks undertaken
reading
baths
appts
park at weekend
because obviously you couldn't only pay sahm for task.would have to pay all mums.inc working mums too

how would you finance that?

would the housewife monies be taxed and ni, redistributed again
is it means tested housewife wage or universal benefit

Had I charged the man I live with for my childcare duties, rather than simply have had free access to all his money, I would have had to pay tax and National Insurance, which would mean we had less money coming into our household. Unless I undervalued my contribution to the extent that I didn't pay tax and NI. And also, would it not mean I was working for him? Or, I suppose, I could be contracting out my services, like cleaners or childminders, but then, he couldn't dispense with my services if he found them unsatisfactory. Hmm. But mostly the first objection really.

scottishmummy:
"paid by individual partner if both agree.personal private arrangement to be negotiated as couple if desired
paid by state absolutely not. money for being economically inactive and undertaking lifestyle choice.no.sahm is not a job."

can i ask where this was suggested by anyone - have i missed it? or are you referring to single mothers receiving benefits? because my take on it would not be that people are receiving money to undertake a lifestyle choice but rather that we are civilised society and would not want to see children starving on the streets?

One of the reasons the current govt are having such a go at single mothers atm, is because tax credits have become part of the economy, essential to enable many of them to work and the govt would prefer them to be dependent on an individual man, whether they like him or not, than the state.

They think they can put the genie back in the bottle. But they can't, because lone parenthood has become too common to re-introduce the level of stigma you would need to discourage women from doing it and too many people know lone parents who are happy and having a good life without their children's father in it and are also raising happy, normal children. That really pisses the govt off. Every time an unhappy women sees a happy lone parent, the possibliity of being there herself, enters her head. That's dangerous, because tht means more tax credits. Single parents are on the front line of feminism, they're being paid to some extent for their work, in a way other mothers aren't - and the govt are bloody livid about it and so are lots of other mothers, who feel the unfairness of it. The tax credit phenomenon has been an interesting thing in that for the first time, a section of mothers actually were being paid a little bit more than CB, for their parenting - because the alternative was that they would be on the dole. I'm sure that wasn't the intention but that has been the effect. The difference with this govt, is that it wants the alternative to be that those mothers continue to stay in bad relationships, that is far preferable than enabling women to function without men.

yes you have missed things,it has been suggestedto pay skrumple.
do read back

LeninGrad Wed 31-Aug-11 16:44:24
Makes me more convinced though that if a partner wants the other to be a SAHP (and that partner is happy to perform that role obv) they should pay the going rate as they go along

HereBeBolloX Wed 31-Aug-11 18:44:41
I agree with Lenin, I think womens hould be paid for the economic hit they take when they have babies and stay home to look after them.Either that, or change the economic system so that having babies and looking after them, doesn't imply an economic hit....We should start charging to reflect the value of our work.

LindenAvery Wed 31-Aug-11 18:46:53
Agree with HBBX!

NormanTebbit Wed 31-Aug-11 18:49:33
I would not pay women to stay at home to care for their kids, I would subsidise cheap affordable childcare which is of high quality.

beckybrastraps Wed 31-Aug-11 18:54:41
Who should they charge HerBex?

HereBeBolloX Wed 31-Aug-11 19:00:19
Men, beckybrastraps.
The men they live with, or the men in government.

I would like to see massively subsidised childcare so that staying at home is a genuine choice, not forced onto women because childcare costs are so high. This would require more taxation or a redirection of existing tax from something else into childcare. I see no problem with this. No one bats an eyelid at this being done for education or the NHS. These things benefit most of of society, and since 82% of people become parents, subsidising childcare would also benefit most of society. It would also contribute to economic growth, extra jobs, extra extra taxation, etc.

For SAHPs who willingly embrace the role, I'd like to see their tax allowance transferred to their partner's wage and the extra allowance used to cover the national insurance and private pension contributions they'd have made if they were working. This would not require subsidy from the government apart from administration costs. To address the issue of the working parent who builds a highly successful career because of the SAHPs role, we could also have a system where the working partner's pension contributions are split in two and divided equally between the two parents in separate pension funds for each.

This could get a bit sticky in terms of single parents or blended families and needs a bit of work, but the principle is sound I think. Why should a single mother not benefit from her Xs income when he is benefitting from her 'free childcare'?

Alternatively, seeing as taxation is based on the individual, we could also make benefits payable to the individual so that a SAHP is always guaranteed her own income (even if it is only at subsistence level). This would probably be beneficial to more women than the model above, but it would probably cost the country a fortune and I can't see it being a vote winner. I also think the model I mentioned earlier sends a much clearer issue about how WOHPs are really helped by the role of the SAHP, which has to be good for improving the status of parenting and gender equality.

scottishmummy the only one of those quotes that directly suggests payment by the govt is HBX's and that was posted after yours - are you psychic???

sahm is a personal choice the state doesnt need to pay anyone for it.
and as i have asked -would all mums get paid?

sahp is bloody demanding but not the same as paid employment,and as such cannot demand a wage

no regulatory body,
no minimums standards of behaviour/quality
no sanctions if rubbish,
no pre-requisite training or qualifications
no checks and balances on quality

unlike regulated childcare which has to demonstrate
? childcare provider compelled to adhere to regulatory standards,
? prepare for inspections and audit
? pay ni, wages and staff training,
? maintain building, pay utilities,
? buy equipment,coshh training,
? medication management, symptom management, first aid, Cpr

parents provide informal,non regulatory care.they dont adhere to any specific guidelines or competencies.at least in nursery staff are ofsted rated and competencies noted.in relatives care this would be absent.no national standard or monitoring.no quality control whatsoever

skrumle,read the thread and pay attention.this isnt benefit bashing.if you want that go elsewhere

a global redistribution of taxes to paediatric clinics,nhs,schools already happens.all salaried people pay via tax and ni

payment specifically to housewifes doesnt happen,and nor should it.as is not a job and not necessary to pay

so youre chewin fat about coulda,woulda,shoulda.not well thought out at all

ok,in that case id like clinique day every Friday at work,this may come as a suprise to you but
i dont care how it works
dont know how to finance it
I'm not that interested in how it works now
and will be campaigning that it's all right and proper, I'm interested in how it could and should be...

really?

you have no notion of how to implement it or persuade an electorate

Just because you didn't value it when you did it yourself SM, no need to pretend that it's not valuable when other women do it.

It is a job. It enables the other partner in the relationship, to go and earn money. If women don't bring up their children, then men would have to do it and they would change the economic system so that childcare and domestic work is recognised as work, whoever does it.

I can never ever get my head round the idea that somethnig is work if you pay a nanny or housekeeper or cleaner to do it, but not work if you don't pay someone to do it.

Work is work.

yes, of course! i am.

feminism is about being able to do what you chose to do and wanting society to recognise 'women's work' as of equal value to paid employment.

really is that it?no specifics just a pie in sky
and heartfelt pay the housewifes?

There are problems with this whichever way you look at it aren't there? You see I QUITE likw sunshine and books' idea, but then I come up against the problem that I would not have benefitted as a single mother whose partner died. I also think that as a single parent who worked outside the home I would have perhaps reassessed whether I wanted to work when I could have received a wage to stay at home. It seems that it's not really all SAHP who would benefit from this, but those with an involved other parent, and is this just? Those who are single parents through death, having ex-partners abroad, or just disinterested wouldn't see any difference (given that the CSA seem unable to collect a lot of basic maintenance payments would they do any better at tax breaks?),
I do also have sympathy with Scottishmummy's point of view. Really SAHP is a lifestyle choice for the couple involved. Perhaps the way to assist is to legislate that a percentage of the working parent's income should be paid directly to the SAHP?

nanny and sahm not comparable
nanny works and is expected to maintain external standards and be qualified
the other is at home watching own kids no expectation of standards