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!

SQ: But it's not forever, is it? I don't know how old you or your DC are but if both they and you are young, you can take babysteps at least towards getting back into the wage-earning world as they get bigger.

You cannot be held responsible for the fact that the choice was not free. that's part of the fight of feminism surely, not blaming the victim.

Well I feel that I am the opposite of the "oops I forgot to have children" career women. I forgot to have a career. I did well at school but did not obey xenia's rules about career choices. If I'm honest I chose my degree (Fine Art!) for romantic reasons, I was happy to starve in a garret with my true love and the only thing I knew i wanted to do for sure was have babies (and i enjoyed being at home with little ones)
I have drifted along and let DH take the lead, it would an awful waste now if he stepped down his career as he has honed his talent in a very specialised field.
I don't even know what I would want to do anymore but I don't feel I have used my opportunities well so I know what you mean Sardinequeen.
Its very easy to lose your focus at home all day.

I suppose you can be a feminist SAHM but you should reasess and renegogiate your "contract" regularly to make sure you do not end up trapped at home. Make it a choice you renew every six months or something.

Off to give myself a kick up the backside.

its your choice to make.but housewife is precarious position and dependent upon partner ability to maintain a certain wage. wage earner will determine where and how you live based on their job,salary

imo,it limits role models children see and does reinforce a domesticity based on someone else wage.

could have written your last post wigglybeezer
But yes you can be a feminist housewife - your role has value. Money does not equal worth.

As an aside isn't 'husband' derived from house also? Husbanding stock is another usage.

I certainly think so!

I am currently a SAHM and have been a feminist for as long as I could think (and was genuinely, naively shocked when I first came onto forums and discovered vast swathes of women so keen to distance themselves from the term).

At the moment, due to circumstance, I am a SAHM, and I must say it has reignited my allegiance to feminism more than anything I have done previously in my life.

I say circumstance, since we have recently returned (well I have returned; DH and the DC have emigrated) to my home country, and we're not in a position to have both of us working full time, what with a baby and a toddler. At one point it looked like I might have been able to take my old job with me which would have meant DH being the SAHP, but that didn't come off and at the last minute an equivalent role came up within his company here which he got. So, SAHM I am.

I actually really, really struggled with it initially and was making myself fairly miserable. To be honest, it's been coming on here and realising how much most of the pressure on me in this role was pressure I was putting on myself and pressure I was perceiving from society. There was certainly zero pressure from DH who has been nothing but a total rock. Once I began to see the wood for the trees and basically just chilled the fuck out, I became much happier and have since started to enjoy it. Thank God/whichever higher being you believe in for feminism.

Well, I enjoy it up to a point...! While this suits us well right now, it won't suit us long-term. I am definitely keen to get back to work for me at some point, and DH is totally supportive of that. We talk about setting up a business together since we are both in the same industry - a main reason being that we would hope to balance our family life around it, more effectively than being wage-slaves for other entities. We're lucky that we don't need me to work right now, when the DC need one of us at home more.

As for money - it's not an issue. DH's salary gets paid into the only account we have here in this country - a joint one in both our names. We both have complete and total access to it and there's no one party asking the other for money, cap in hand.

Yes, of course you can.

You talk about how it would be an "awful waste" if your DH stepped down his career - but women are encouraged not to think in terms of the "awful waste" they are forced to undergo, when they have children, in a workplace which is structured to make it as difficult to function as a loving parent and a productive employee, as possible.

Not that I think SAHMing is an awful waste - it is valuable work which has to be done by someone, but it is an outrage that women are the ones who are forced into doing most of it by the structures of our society and that it is unpaid and unvalued and we end up poor because we do it, while men grow rich at our expense because what they do is considered more valuable.

If you're happy doing what you're doing, keep calm and carry on - making sure that you're financially protected if your marriage implodes. If not, talk to your DH about how you can reorganise your life as a family, but don't go from the negotiation starting point that his life, career, aspirations, hopes and dreams are more important than yours, and that a waste of his time and talents, is a greater tragedy than a waste of your's. Your thing of having a six monthly recap, is brilliant btw.

"oops I forgot to have children" career women

You can be a feminist housewife but if you are going to be one it'd help if you stopped labelling women (including yourself) in that kind of way.

Hear hear HerBe

I am very dismayed at the attitude of a lot of people which goes a bit like this.

'Well, when the kids no longer need you, you can go back to work and start again'

What they mean (whether or not they realise it is) that the year you have spent not engaging in the career have essentially been worthless and that when you, after 3/5/7/10 years are no longer needed as intensively at home you should go back and compete on the same playing field at this who did not. This is obviously impossible. Your salary will never be the same, pension payments lots during childrearing are lost forever, career progression at 45-55 is very different to that at 35-45.

And the time you spent raising your children is seen as a waste of valuable carreer time.

Am I explaining myself?

TheReal I get what you are saying and broadly agree. One assumption that is being made though which I'm not quite comfortable with is that the choice is child rearing or "pursuit of career".

Some people (men and women) just like to work and career progression is not a priority. So the idea of stopping work for a bit then rejoining the workforce x year(s) later may not be as dismal as is painted - depends on level of ambition personally.

When I go back in c16 mths I won't be chasing promotion as I don't want more responsibility than I already have. I find it tough enough now.

Hmmm....

Yes, I see that too. I suppose if the 'career' one left/will rejoin is one of the more traditionally hierarchical ones then what I'm talking about is more apt, whereas if you want to work in a role that isn't structured like that the 'taking time out' might be less of an issue. BUT you've still lost those pension accruing years.

Yes agree, if you have the choice and are happy with the choice you have made then losing pension etc is something you just have to suck up - regardless of gender. I missed out on 4 years of pension contributions because I did a PhD full time - my loss (financially), my choice, my gain (eventually).

The real crux of the matter is whether you are obliged or forced to make a choice you are not happy with.

My OH for example has been very clear up front that he isn't going to take time away from his career - ever. He never wants to retire. I accept that is his desire - I have a different outlook and will make choices that suit me. We'll rub along fine as we communicate and neither of us is martyring our desires.

Now I know I am very very lucky as we have worked very hard to give ourselves choices financially.

Yes, but it's always women who lose out on their pensions, their opportunities to fully use their talents etc.

I think it's perfectly possible to be a feminist housewife, but only if you have real economic independence. However, I have seen taking on the housewife role massively alter the power balance in my friends' relationships, so that when they met, they both had careers they loved. Now, one person's career and interests are subtley downgraded; the male partner is the one with the career, defines where they live, what type of livestyle they have, and also whether the marriage continues or leaves the woman in poverty (if they have not secured their financial interests). Worse, I have seen on this board recently women who are essentially economically dependent on their husband so wondering whether to put up with not being loved, not being treated nicely or worse (am now wondering whether SGB's contention that being single is ok is indeed the most important thing feminism can teach us...) I agree with HerBex about the economic hit being felt by women.

Lots of women tell me that they weren't that career minded anyway, they welcome the opportunity to step off the career ladder, that it's better not to be so materialistically driven, that they contribute a lot to the community, that they work in invisible ways, that looking after children is devalued, that teenagers need you around a lot anyway, working part-time suits the school pick up, that they've invested in their husband's career so it's better to keep focused on that one, they don't mind moving for his work to foreign countries or where they know no-one. Individually, they may well be right that for their families, this division of labour works best. But what worries me collectively, is that women are now missing from public life as leaders and managers. Collectively women are poorer in old age. Collectively, women's talents and education are not being utilized. I am not sure if as an individual you should sacrifice for the greater good (Xenia style) but it's worth thinking through what the world looks like when we make our choices.

I think you can, wiggly, but I see your dilemma. At the end of the day, it's really about empowerment, and being confident in your choices. You have made a choice, and I don't see that you are any less of a feminist because you have nurtured children. A view of feminism that takes the view that children are equally as well looked after by strangers is missing the point, in my opinion. I see career women all the time who seem to be more trapped than those who are at home, because they are still not free to make choices about how and when they work, and they still face being judged by society. We do not live in a perfect world where we can exercise choice all the time, unfortunately.

sardine - many women who stay at home with children do not particularly enjoy it, but you did what you had to do, and you should feel proud of yourself, and not give yourself a hard time. Children need looking after, a good deal of time, patience and energy, and someone has to do it. You will learn something about life, about yourself, and you will be stronger for it. Don't knock it - try to get what you can out of it.

Hardgoing I don't disagree with any of that but the question of whether you can take that time out or choose to be at home compromises feminist principles. My point is that it does if you do it unwillingly, that is, it is contrary to the free choice you should have.

Sadly it is financial factors that determine that freedom. I have built my own nest egg, paid extra into my pension to catch up and pre-empt my time off, and secured (by law) my 30% deed ownership of the house reflective of my capital investment (which was less that OH).

So I say you can choose to stay at home with feminist principles in tact if you have secured your equality.

We are probably saying the same thing but with a slightly different angle.

PamSco, I agree with what you said, so I guess we are saying the same thing! I do know women who have stayed home for, say, five years and absolutely secured themselves financially as equal partners with their husbands (by marrying, in one instance, and getting equal pension input).

I also think there's a difference between being a SAHM for a short period with very young children and being a long-term housewife as a lifestyle choice. There's not an equal hit on careers/pensions.

Another, perhaps slightly controversial view, and I'd be interested to see what others think, is that I've noticed that myself and my friends who work out of the home tend to be more independent in other ways, such as having weekends away/night off with friends, setting aside time for exercise/hobbies, and so on, having more of a sense of identity separate to motherhood. I have several friends who have stayed home (and talk of 'sacrificing themselves', eek) who simply think they have to be attached to their children all the time, including the evenings and weekends, even if they are a bit older. Their husbands or partners don't seem to value them apart from the children or see they have their own needs (e.g. leisure, friendships) but happily go for golfing weekends or out with the boys from work for drinks. In other words, the housewife role for some women seems to purpetuate further inequalities in leisure time and general household priorities (working man first, everyone else second). Or is that just my friends?

being dependent to someone else wage,which determines
where you live
how you live
proximity to friends/family
is a precarious and imo risky option. and is dependant upon (usually) woman giving things up to watch child/ren but predominately to support male career.as female drops off employment she becomes more dependent upon her partner. the waged partner can meet any work commitment without worry about nursery or school drop off/collection.always able to work late and be spontaneous

meanwhile female - no wage.no recent employment.probably old references and no pension contributions.remain dependent upon waged partner

essentially enacting dominant economic partner (male) and economically inactive female role. and potentially your children never see mum work,and maybe think housewifery is womens work

It's a different perspective. I was a SAHP for 5 years, and I certainly spent more time considering the nature of feminism then that I do now as a WOHP. But when I do think about it, I notice that different perspective. When I was a SAHP, it was about choice, and the validity of different choices, and parity of esteem. It was quite an individualistic approach perhaps. Now I am a WOHP, I think more about the collective. If I make a choice as an individual, how does that affect others in the choices they see as available for themselves? So yes, I think it is certainly possible to be a feminist as a SAHP/houewife, and I think that a lot of women are actually pretty likely to identify very strongly as feminist in that situation, because of the baggage that surrounds it. I know I did. But then my idea of feminism shifted when I went back to work. Not necessarily the details, but my overview.

it is a precarious and risky option, yes, fucking hell I agree with scottish mummy.

but

there's a little more to it than that.
I think it serves patriarchal society to trivialise child-rearing, and to trivialise pregnancy and childbirth too.
Will live in an upside down topsy turvy society where real work, such as raising children is given zero status and very little pay (none at all if you raise your own children), and where incompetent men are given huge bonuses out of tax-payers money as a reward for not doing their jobs properly.

So, because whatever women do is trivilialised or invisible, pregnancy, birth and childrearing has managed to get the status it has.

Women have to choose: do they want economic independance from a man, or should they forfeit that because they want to spend time with the children they risked their lives to bring into the world (if you don'T think childbirth is risky, please google "maternal death rates)

Women are stuck between a rock and a hard place, in a patriarchy

Personally, I wish this revolution would get off the ground

statistically yes birth is riskiest thing a woman will medically undergo, but that doesn't negate that birth itself has never been safer in countries with clinical staff and medical interventions eg scbu,nicu, epidural,cs to respond to any contraindications. the majority of births are straightforward and mw lead,not require too much intervention

but for as long as there is the mummy martyr who gives things up for her child/ren then that reinforces the childcare responsibility as female

sahm isnt a job.itsa lifestyle choice. ardous yes but not comparable to a job.and bigging up housewifery as marvellous set of complex tasks and as socially worthhile as employment is risible

sahm,is personal choice,makes individual difference to that family. doesnt overall benefit others or redistribute money or utilise those skills for others

bigging uo sahm as a venerated role is massively missing the point.

Radio 2 debate on Jeremy Vine just started on this.

I agree it is risky and precarious ( at agreeing with SM ) but I also agree with Sakura

And it is a job. If I didn't do it (I do) we would have to pay someone else to do it. It just isn't seen as a job by society and the patriarchy loves that because it means that SAHM choose to be in. Risky and precarious position, they can blame us for being where we are, as after all we could go and sell out souls to capitalism out to work in a 'real' job.

are the faces supposed to mean something?whats significant about you agreeing with me