Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Can you be a feminist housewife?

661 replies

wigglybeezer · 30/08/2011 14:00

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!

OP posts:
Riveninabingle · 04/09/2011 13:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SecretSquirrell · 04/09/2011 13:18

Indeed Scottishmummy. Nail on head there!

scottishmummy · 04/09/2011 13:21

inevitably if only one person works,then the waged person takes on working salaried role and the sahp does the domestic and childcare. if you dont work and are dependent upon someone else its an inevitable demarcation of tasks. and back to what i said way in the beginning, imo it is risky and precarious to not work and be wholly dependent upon a partner.

Riveninabingle · 04/09/2011 14:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

scottishmummy · 04/09/2011 15:00

completely agree.its not 24-7 on call all time

Riveninabingle · 04/09/2011 20:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ssd · 04/09/2011 20:22

enjoy the peace riven Smile you bloody deserve it

solidgoldbrass · 04/09/2011 22:44

Scottishmummy: That's at the heart of the whole thread: that too many people assume that it's 'natural' and unavoidable for the SAHMother to be on domestic shitwork duty 24/7 because she 'doesn't work.'

Riveninabingle · 04/09/2011 23:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sunshineandbooks · 04/09/2011 23:19

I know SAHMs on both sides of the debate. The ones home by choice with loving, respectful husbands and a good life. Good for them I say.

Unfortunately, I've come across many more for whom the phrase 'shitwork' could have been coined. And do you know what? They're not brain-dead supplicants. In many cases they're amazingly capable, indomitable women who have and continue to cope with more than many of you in your cosy ivory towers can ever dream of.

To demand fairness in life you have to be aware of what isn't fair. Many women have never had that degree of awareness because our patriarchal system works quite hard to stifle it and to get women to blame themselves if they get a raw deal.

1 in 4 women experience violence in a relationship. Grow up with that and you're much more likely to tolerate it in your own adult relationships. Cleaning products are nearly always marketed at women, tapping into the subliminal message that it's still a woman's responsibility. There's a whole load of culture and socialisation playing into this.

Now if you are lucky enough to have had the sort of background that prepared you to settle for no less than you deserve, good for you. But it is smug, uncharitable and completely out-of-touch to say that all those women who aren't getting it deserve exactly what they have. Nice Hmm

All the things society could do to focus on men's behaviour and improving the equality in relationships... but no, let's concentrate on the woman's failings and blame her for being in a shitty situation.

Himalaya · 05/09/2011 00:29

I agree with Sunshineandbooks that blaming the victim is not right and telling people to just 'get a grip' when they are in a terrible situation is not helpful.

But I don't think we should just look at the terrible situations and think that otherwiseakl is ok.

I don't think the heart of the discussion iS just about whether the earner and non-earner find a mutually agreeable way to share domestic chores in a one earner household.

I think the heart of it is whether it IS a problem that in the vast majority of cases the SAHP/ prime carer/lower earner is the mother.

Do people think that is an ok state of affairs?

SecretSquirrell · 05/09/2011 08:01

I love how somehow you are lucky or live in an ivory tower because you aren't married to and put up with, a nasty little shit of a husband.
I could have ended up with any number of nasty little shitty men. I chose not to.

Bonsoir · 05/09/2011 08:21

Himalaya - there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with the fact that the majority of SAHP/second earners are mothers. It's only "wrong" if the majority of SAHP/second earners are unhappy about the fact that they are SAHP/second earners.

By the way, I should love to be both SAHP and breadwinner but I'm while I'm working out how to do that I would rather outsource breadwinning than SAHPing Grin

Riveninabingle · 05/09/2011 09:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SecretSquirrell · 05/09/2011 09:58

Me too Grin

sunshineandbooks · 05/09/2011 10:41

Riven, Secret Squirrel, good for you. If you want a medal for making better choices, have one. I'm pleased for you. I wish more women would follow your examples, I really do.

But most don't. Are women really that stupid? Or could it possibly be that something else is going on (like the patriarchy still influencing women's behaviour in subtle ways)?

Do you think people should be punished for not being strong? Do you think the vulnerable deserve ill-treatment for not standing up for themselves? Or do you think, as I do, that while it is always good to empower people and to try to get them to take control of their lives, it is actually far better to STOP people behaving badly in the first place. Then the vulnerable don't NEED to stand up for themselves. We try to get tourists to minimise their vulnerability to mugging, but if the worst happens we don't blame them for it, we blame the perpetrators. When it comes to sexist marriages or violence against women though, different rules apply it seems.

Not withstanding the odd individuals whose lives are so messed up that they actively court dangerous men, do you think abused women generally go round seeking out abusers? Do you think abusive men go round thumping their girlfriends on a first date? They don't come with a sign around their necks. They often wait until a woman is at her most vulnerable (e.g. pregnant and therefore willing to try harder to make the relationship work) and the first episodes of abuse are very subtle and rarely violent. It's insidious.

Likewise, a man with a sense of entitlement when it comes to housework etc quite often isn't revealed as one until their is a shift in the relationship, such as having the first child.

These imbalances are shored up by our culture. Paternity leave is unpaid, meaning it nearly always results in the mother staying at home. Finances are tight because there is only one full wage and a lot of extra costs, so often the man works harder meaning the woman is alone and therefore taking up more of the slack domestically. At the time everyone is sleep deprived and muddling through and things can easily become unequal before anyone realises what's happened.

When you're tired and stressed it is easier to focus on bigger problems rather than insidious problems like housework.

If a woman tries to redress an unequal relationship she is often made to feel petty - it's only over a bit of washing up after all, marriage is for life, it's all about compromise, you need to work at it, etc. If that's still not good enough and she leaves, she then has to face life as a single parent with all that entails (poverty, scapegoating). Some women stay because they know they will face poverty on their own and they see staying with a sexist partner as preferable to seeing their children suffer the difficulties that go with poverty. They sacrifice their own happiness and respect for what they see as better chances for their children. Misguided? Yes. Understandable? Yes. Worthy of scorn? No!

If a woman is unlucky enough to have a violent partner rather than one who is 'just' sexist, leaving is the point at which she is most likely to face stalking and serious violence. 2 women a week are killed by partners and ex partners in this country ? many of them were trying to leave and had just left. The reason many women stay is fear that leaving will get them killed. It's a rational fear. Who are you to say that if they stay they deserve that?

There is many a strong, independent woman who has found herself in these situations. You have to be lucky enough to fall in love with a man who don't behave like this or aware enough to spot the signs. We have a culture that actively discourages this - think of the behaviour presented in rom coms, twilight, etc. It's all presented as passion and romance. Hmm

I'ven been there and come out of it. Before taking up with my XP I never understood women who put up with sexist and/or violent partners and also thought they deserved it for putting up with it. I had a humbling experience. Unless you've had it too, you really do not know how you'd react and whether or not you'd be strong enough to leave. And even if you're pretty sure, try some compassion. Everyone is clearly not as wonderful and strong as you are.

Riveninabingle · 05/09/2011 11:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

scottishmummy · 05/09/2011 16:44

the downtrodden life sgb describes of sucking cock and shitwork.well yes if a woman if she finds herself with a lazy git at some point has to reflect how did i get here and what am i going to do about this. naturally if anyone posted the life downtrodden sgb describes,then yes i hope she;d leave.i hope she'd learn to reflect and not replicate the same pattern or chose same man. and when i do read the threads were women describe their lazy remote controll hogging does fuck partner -yes i do think get a grip. and hopefully at some point they will. and some women wittingly or unwittingly have a domestic arrangement were man does nowt domestically,and they present a very traditional representation of so called women's work

SecretSquirrell · 05/09/2011 18:07

Scottishmummy, I agree.

I also get very twitchy with the continual portrayal of women as helpless and hapless victims of men.

We are not. There is more support, both practical and financial, for women leaving relationships than at any time in history. in fact, many more women are actually better off as single parents on benefits.

If you are in a lousy relationship with a shitty bloke, you have three choices. Put up and shut up, try and change him or leave.

The best thing, however, is not to get involved in the first place but I'm sure I'll be accused of being smug again if I suggest that Hmm.

sunshineandbooks · 05/09/2011 18:24

Unless you take up with an unusual abuser who shows his colours straight off, you're usually 'involved' before problems start showing, so 'not getting involved' in the first place is not a solution.

I too get twitchy when people assume not leaving = hapless and helpless. I never said that. Contrary to popular opinion and media portrayal, DV victims are often very determined, forthright characters. They have to be to manage to juggle the demands of life in addition to an abusive relationship. The problem is not that they're downtrodden (though this is the eventual result) but that they don't recognise they're being abused. If they did, they would leave.

And maybe they would recognise sexism and/or abuse if they weren't faced with a culture that normalises or even glamorises sexism and milder forms of abuse as well as an extremely subtle and sustained campaign from their partner to skew their acceptance of what is 'normal'.

Despite this, most abused women do leave, and most abused women also tend to make better choices of partner in subsequent relationships (despite more media portrayal that they bounce from one abusive partner to another and therefore must be actively seeking it out, though I'm sure someone will come on here and post that they know someone just like that... Hmm).

And single mothers may indeed be better off emotionally, financially and practically than women in bad relationships, where the abusive/sexist partner can be emotionally draining, financially controlling, and contributing more extra work/problems than helping to ease them. None of that takes away from the fact that single mothers are TWICE as likely as any other parent to be living in poverty. Even those that work. And that doesn't even begin to factor in the emotional/financial and practical hurdles of having to leave your home with your children and find somewhere new to live, since most single mothers do not end up staying in the family home.

SinicalSal · 05/09/2011 18:45

'Not to get involved in the first place'

yes isn't it odd how smugness is often pointed out Hmm. Perhaps if you don't want to be called smug you should examine your own behaviour and how you came to be in that situation. Because that is the issue. Alternatively, you shouldn't get involved in the first place. It should be easy to tell which thread you'll be accused of smuggery on from the very first post, because that's usually the most representative and extreme of the thread.

scottishmummy · 05/09/2011 19:17

i havent said women are hapless,far from it,so i dont know what subject matter you feel you are avoiding for fear someone will label you smug

I am saying a realisation or reflection of a situation when accompanied by desire to act is a good thing.and yes there is a point when hopefully someone put upon thinks how did i get here,i want a change.thats a powerful psychological turning point

and there is some self exploration,and reflection to understand situation.and avoidance of and recognition of such signs in future

sunshineandbooks · 05/09/2011 19:35

Scottishmummy it was secretsquirrel who used the term 'hapless.' Coming back to your post, I agree that self-reflection and a realisation of your own part is a good thing. The thing is though, most abused women do that. The women who stay with abusive partners are well outnumbered by those that don't. The women who leave do learn and move on. Their abusive partners OTOH change nothing and simply go on to abuse more women. Although often they learn too - how to abuse more cleverly.

One abusive man can ruin several women's lives and their children's. Yet all our focus seems to be on making it women's responsibility to sort it out or leave, not on men's responsibility to change.

The same notion applies, to a lesser extent, to women living in relationships that are casually sexist and disrespectful.

I don't know what the solutions are. I suggest paid paternity leave, a better enforcement of maintenance for non-resident parents, proper punishment for DV as starters. Pretty basic stuff really, but though politicians of all colours talk the talk they rarely put it into action. In the case of the Coalition they are actually going backwards by charging women to use the CSA.

scottishmummy · 05/09/2011 19:42

some men may have a habitual dysfunctional state which is re-enacted time and time again. the women its enacted upon should try to get out,and seek what support they needs to recover

and yes some people both men and women are dysfunctional,and cause considerable harm and upset to many

Himalaya · 05/09/2011 22:21

Sorry to harp on, but the OP wasn't asking about whether dysfunctional, abusive relationships are a good idea or not. They aren't.

She was asking whether a respectful, mutually beneficial relationship of fixed housewife-and-earner roles is consistent with feminism.

Without disparaging anyone's happy relationship and it-works-for-us arrangement I do think it IS a problem that so many women still choose (or wander into) a situation where having children has so much more of an impact on their professional life and lifetime earning power than their DHs.

Why don't people want to challenge this situation - is it because they think it's natural for mothers to be more involved and therefore can't be challenged? Or because they think it's natural and therefore don't want to talk about it, or what? It seems so fundamental to much of the inequality between men and women.

FWIW I think it is natural for mothers to be more willing to give up more for their offspring in the early years than fathers. But that doesn't mean it can't be challenged or changed.

Swipe left for the next trending thread