Feminism and house prices

[Anniegetyourgun]

An issue I've seen before was raised again in this thread and I thought I'd talk it out here rather than derailing the thread or showing my ignorance .

Issue is that feminism is blamed for the rise in house prices during the 70s/80s. The argument would appear to be that because women were able to (a) work and (b) earn a fair wage for doing so, the laws of supply and demand meant that prices and loans were geared towards double-income households, thus pretty much forcing everyone to go out to work whether it suited them or not, and making it very difficult for single earners to afford to buy a house at all. The net result is to reduce options for women rather than increase them.

There's definitely something that does not stack up here, but I am not an economist (tried doing an economics course at the OU a few years ago, couldn't get my head round it). I mean, there's the obvious point that if the price of housing depends on half the population being either chained to the kitchen sink or paid a lot less for doing the same job, this is unfair - like a society based on slavery, but you see we just can't afford to pay them, it's better for the slaves too etc. Also there are far too many assumptions that all women can get married if they want to (let's not even start on the theory that they should want to!), that working age equates to child-bearing age, that all women can as well as want to give birth, oh, and that all men are able to earn enough money to keep a family. These are all fair points IMO. What I'm looking for, though, is hard economic arguments as to why feminism taking the blame for house price rises is horseshit, because I'm fairly sure it is, but I couldn't tell you why.

Could someone with brains that work and/or who has read Useful Texts on the subject help me out, please?

lol

IIRC, an older friend of mine (in her 60s now) was asked what contraception she was using when she and her DH applied for a mortgage. Because clearly as soon as she had babies, she'd be out of the labour market.

disgusting

Just to be a bit contraversial here: I've no doubt that there were many factors influencing rising house prices, but taking a woman's income into account in the 80s was I'msure one of them. I agree it seems today pretty shocking not to do so, but the explosion produced the situation you have now: in many parts of the country, in good areas, it is essential to have 2 incomes to buy and keep up payments on a house. It's rare formostfamilies to have the option of one stay at home parent. When both parents are forced to work just to keep the family home, is that really liberating?

bugster - I wouldn't argue it was a factor. But even if it was my response would be 'so what?'. A price worth paying and one that had to be paid eventually.

I'm sure the abolition of child labour in factories increased costs and had an effect on prices. Bad thing? Don't think so.

Well, what I was trying to say is, I'm not sure it is a price worth paying, when you are a slave to your mortgage and no longer have a choice whether both parents work or one stays at home.

Well that is a matter of opinion of course bugster.

well exactly SGM, working class women have always worked. We're not talking about labour here, we're talking about economic renumeration.
What happened was, workign class women started saying they would no longer put up with working for free, or for peanuts, and middle class women refused to be sent batty holed up in their homes and went into the professions.

Poor teh middle class menz could no longer afford a female slave at home. Working class men OTOH always have always to co-operate with women of their class, because they were economically productive.

A lot more women could afford to stay at home than is the case now. Ok maybe they were mostly middle class and the poorest women still had to work, but I think it was a very different proportion from nowadays. In my town in the early 80s it was really unusual for a mother to work. In the same towntoay things have changed radically. In truth a lot of women have been forced into the.abour market.

Not wanting to be sexist I agree it would have been wrong automatically to disregard a woman's income just because of her sex. Perhaps it wou
D have been better to take into account one income, either the man's or woman's, whichever was highest.

ooh, good analogy about child labour ORmirian. Yes, I'm sure that did increase labour and production costs.

So fucking what?

bugster, it's true that nowadays middle class women have been forced into the labour market, whereas they might prefer to stay with their children. Let's remember that working class women have never had the choice; they have always done the most back-breaking work on behalf of society.

But yes, the system right now is still not adequate enough because there are many mothers who are forced to separate from their babies when they're still breastfeeding. A caring society would not expect mothers to do this.

It all needs to change, all of it. There's no reason whatsoever why women can't work with their children close by (should they want to). Working culture is designed to be inimical to women, especially mothers. (Take "the city" for example and the way they entertain clients at lap dancing clubs. That is all so that women are excluded)
BUt this is basically a MASSIVE discussion

Don't really agree with the child labour analogy. Obviously abolishing that was a good thing. Taking away a parent's choice to be a full time parent, not a good thing - in my opinion. Maybe some of you feel differently about that.

"Taking away a parent's choice to be a full time parent, not a good thing"

But that wasn't the intention was it? The intention was that women whould be able to got out to work and earn a respectable income. To be able to hold their own financially. The mortgage issue was an outcome.

Similarly child labour was an evil that needed to be abolished. It would have resulted in increased prices. They also were an outcome not the intention.

Oh and don't start with the 'fuill-time parent' thing please!

Err Sakura, I think that your statement 'there's no reason whatsoever why women cant work with their children close by' is bizarre

There is lots of jobs where this would be impossible. Work is ten times easier than being with the kids all day but maybe not as much fun.

There are not many building sites where it would be sensible for DD to be close by me.

I agree with Sakura that today's workplace is inimical to women, and in many cases it should be possible for women to work with children close by. In a way that's why I think it's sad that many women now are forced to spend much longer separated from their children than they or their children would like, when it is still a workplace which favours men.

Bugster can you and Sakura name, give a list, of workplaces where it would be possible for your kids to be close by...i'd be interested to see your suggestions

Nobody is really forced to be apart from their children, it's a choice a lot of women make either due to financial pressures or simply because they dont want to forsake a career they spent many years building.

Your arguements seemed to be based on the premise that woman automatically dont want to go out to work with small children but like many in my peer group I like the satisfaction of combining motherhood whilst still retaining a sense of independence by having a paid income

Speaking of women who were or weren't in the paid workforce in the past, an elderly relative of mine (who never married) was an office worker in London in the 1930s. She said it was a pretty general policy that married women simply weren't allowed to earn wages--the idea was that a husband should support his wife, and she should leave and let a married man have a paying job. She recalled that occasionally women would be sacked for the crime of getting married, and there was one woman who was secretly married but kept on working, but only as long as she needed to stay in order to buy (wait for it) a vacuum cleaner.

The way forward is to offer a choice of working patterns that enables a work/life balance to both men and woman, because childcare shouldn't just be a womans issue but the comment about bringing children into the workplace will just reinforce the belief that childcare is solely the perogative of the mother

Somebody's probably said this already but we women should know our place and know that our earnings have nothing to do with house prices.

It is widely endlessly reported that the boom really began in 1998, which is when the banks started to offer mortgages for higher multiples of income. And interest rates were reduced dramatically and stayed low.

That's all, let's not get carried away in thinking that our incomes are remotely important. It is possible however that women earners have kept incomes lower, as in a partnership you don't need to earn so much.

But changes in bank rules started all this off. That, and Thatcher selling council homes at a ridiculous price just to prove some capitalist point.

Subsidised childcare provided by either the father or the mother's employer anyone? Or would that be far too socialist?