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!

But did you see the things that happened as a result of you needing to be off work, as purely your issue? Even when you were facilitating your partner earning money?

I find it odd, because to me, it sounds like a situation where there is a lot of dependence in the relationship, yet you only acknowledge the big financial issues, and keep them separate. I get that it works for you so that is lovely ... I just don't see it as independence when you are relying on each other so much. And when there is reliance that disadvantages women financially (as this kind of set up will tend to), it may not bother you but is a bit of a warning sign to people like me who've not yet had kids.

you need to rephrase,thats a bit garbled frankly
how is earning my own salary,and not being financially dependant compromising me

id worry more as a housewife,no wage,no recent work experience wholly reliant upon someone else. if i had no means of own money and where i lived etc was dependent upon someone else then id worry

The way I see it. As things presently stand women (in a relationship) have 2 choices:

1. SM and PamCo's model which maintains independence but isn't equitable, especially when you throw children into the mix. Works for many individuals. (personally I think this is less equal)

2. A shared financial arrangement. Which also works form many but is still not equitable as women are in a more precarious and dependent position.

Either way being a feminist obviously can't be dependent on your employment status out of the home as neither option an equal option. And the value and valuing of the labour within the home is a feminist issue.

SM - I must confess your posts have me wondering - do you have a food budget? What if one of you eats more than the other - or say likes brown bread rather than white? Do you end up fighting over the heating - say if one of you likes it hotter than the other? What about water consumption? Or using a landline? I would wonder if you ever have arguments over anything you pay for out of a joint budget? Can you hand on heart say your financial arrangements have never created a situation where one of you has felt resentful to the other because 'joint' money was used unfairly?

of course its equitable im not dependent upon someone else
i maintain salary, pension,got promoted.all result of working. my gains are my gains i dont depend upon partner for basics and i dont need shared money to eke out my time

linden,youre really over thinking this
yes food,utilities etc shared.and no i dont challenge every jar of marmite in trolley.we are partners with individual personal finances and shared joint stuff

the majority of posts i see on here about tight wads are partner/husband of housewife when he controls money.she doesnt have any money so is accountable to him

FWIW - my set up is like MBJ's option 2. However pre-kids I was in a well paid job and I saved and invested well. Since kids I have never returned to full time paid work - have done various paid PT work as well as lots of voluntary stuff.

And even when I was a SAHM earning no money from a paid job - I think some other WOHP and people within my community did benefit from my role as I did work at school - library, reading buddy and walking bus supervisor as well as running a toddler group and distributing charity newsletters.

joint
food
utilities
sky
broadband
insurance
nursery fees
holiday
all kids clothes
kids activities
equal just in case money into joint for emergencies
petrol

individual
own clothes
own phones
own travel cards
own social
gym
cosmetics
isa and savings

and no have never argued about a joint as we agree all actal and planned joint spending

its really not as hard as some of you make out

The Real not sure I understand why my situation isn't equitable (I think it is completely equitable) but I'll ignore as it doesn't move the debate forward.

I agree it isn't how you choose to manage your finances/emplyment it is how comfortable you are that you had a choice in deciding that set up.

100% agreement that valuing labour in the home whether you prefer it to be called a job or a task is a feminist issue as you say. Where I think disagreements happen is what does valuing mean? To me the answer isn't slapping a price tag on it - though I would in a debate where someone devalued said labour.

Both partners need to respect the effort and the result. This is trivial but I HATE doing the dishes - always have, just loath it. So that's his job. In return I do laundry - he doesn't enjoy it and (saddo here) does. That's the currency of equality to me.

If he turned round to me and said - dishes, of course you have to do them it is woman's work - he'd find a regular invoice posted pdq. Nah scrap that he'd find ground glass in his dinner.

But SM, you and your partner (from your description), are financially dependent. So how do you resolve it? It doesn't just go away because you're earning, does it? That just provides a nice safety net for you personally (not knocking safety nets, of course).

i think pam and i have it arranged pretty equitable
as not dependent upon person to maintain our lifestyle

It's one of those things that couples really have to consider how it will work for them before they have children I suppose? Someone further up the thread mentioned their relationship being a team effort? I know my DH sees his salary as family money and always has - just as I see any money in my name as family money too?

we have a shared life and children,not a co-dependency
and if he upped and off id be ok
we agree things as a couple.no one has the dominant hand or final say as one would see in trad housewife set up for example.

most def in a mutual and supportive family relationship
we have always done both separate and joint,even pre-kids.except pre-kids no childcare expenses for example

Because in your situation there is no value attached to the work and labour done in bearing children (risking your well being etc, etc) and taking time our (even if just a short while). financially your situation maintains your independence. But as it doesn't recognise the above it can't be equal

Unless your work and partner's work is perfectly evenly spread in and out of the home and you each have exactly the same 'spending money' at the end I Don't think it is particularly equal either (whether or not you or he ends up with more)

Hey, even in a childless relationship where both partners work out of the home this is an issue. It just is often 'high other's' when a parent stays at home and or there are children involved.

High others

High-lighted

Exactly Linden - talk about and agree - that's the key.

The interesting question for me revolves (as per OPs original post) around feminist principles. If you feel your status is valued and equitable then there is no compromise of feminist beliefs.

We talk about our independent savings together and what we are doing with them - for example we both have a wee nest egg so we are currently deciding to punt it into the mortgage - that then becomes a joint asset - split as defined in the deeds. So the situation isn't as closed as it may sound. But by law, if teh worst happened I know I'll be all right and that is very important to me.

Well, I am dependent on DH's salary to maintain my lifestyle. I work FT. I have a good salary. I probably could just about afford to live in this house on my salary, but I certainly wouldn't be able to afford a holiday, weekends away or to shop where I do without his contribution. And indeed, didn't when we only had his salary coming in.

thats your subjective opinion.we value and contribute to our family.just because that doesnt manifest as me being housewife,or not sahp doesnt mean it has no or decreased value. we can pay someone else to do tasks whilst we both work

it is exactly because i value family and what i do that i want to be a positive role model. and demonstrate working and not solely to be housewife. my parents both worked ft.they imbued us with very good values and work ethos

my ability to earn means i can chose lifestyle,job and maintain career.if i did not earn id be dependent and tied to dp career path for everything.

This really can't be a flame war at all! There is no right or wrong if you are happy with your situation. We all seem to be happy?

Your talking about your own personal choices though. Which is fine. If you are happy with your set up. Cool.

It doesn't make it equal for women as a group to disregard the value of their unpaid labour.

SM - I could say the same - I value family and I want to be a positive role model - I've just chosen a different way.

I'm not flaming. I'm nosey curious.

You can be a SAHM and have "very good values" and "work ethos". SM it doesn't sound to me like you've chosen anything. Now I really understand where you are coming from.