What is the appeal of the 50s housewife thing?

[blobtobetter]

Was thinking about this today. What is so appealing about the 1950s stereotype of a housewife? It seems like there is a return to old fashionedness and sort of twee stuff. Kirstie Allsopp and her craft bits and comments about putting husbands first and all that.

It just seems like you would be dependant totally on someone else and if they left you would be stuck!

The 50's thing was a way of selling domesticity back to women who'd got rather too used to a degree of independence during the war. Having said that I'm sure many were happy to say cheerio to filthy factories, lousy pay etc. As another poster said - housewifery held status.

I sometimes think that there is a concerted effort to sell this fluffy fantasy of domesticity back to women again for similar reasons. The emancipation of women has created some unintended and not always desirable consequences. Admitting that doesn't equate to saying it shouldn't have happened. However, the fact is that a lot of women who are hoovering at 10pm and about to run out of clean clothes should be forgiven for wondering if previous social models might have been less exhausting.

'Having said that I'm sure many were happy to say cheerio to filthy factories, lousy pay etc'

My granny was one of those - she worked in a factory in the war and hated it because the other girls were 'rough' and used to swear.
She was working class herself but from the countryside and moved to London when she met my grandad.

A lot didn't 'say goodbye' to their work post-war, they were told that once the men came back or they got married, they were expected to quit their job. I know one woman, now in her eighties, that was forced to give up her degree-course in veterinary studies just because she wanted to get married. I think we get a little side-tracked with the 'having it all' stereotype. The most fundamental thing a lot of women didn't have, then gained briefly and lost again was independence.

Working-class women always worked out of necessity and their independence was restricted mostly by their relative poverty, lack of education and social status. Middle-class women were rendered dependent for different reasons. What that '50's Housewife' image was doing - via adverts, magazines and other propaganda - was to reinforce the message that 'good women' should be quite happy to be dependent, & have no other ambitions than their menfolk, children and a sparkling home.

I worry, tbh, that we are sliding back in this hankering for the past by thinking it was so much easier. It's not adverts of smiling women in fussy skirts, fondling washing machines saying 'this will give me so much more time to bake cakes for my husband' any more. It's the more subtle 'it's good to be dependent on men' culture promoted by WAGs, Allsopp, et al that bothers me.

"We're knackered...." that is so true, and looking knackered is now seen as letting yourself go, rather than an indication that being up five times in the night with a sick child, running a household, working long hours, fulfilling social obligations etc is rather a strain.

Looking back, one of the things that made my colicky non-sleeping DD's first year so difficult was my determination to continue cooking everything from scratch. When DD did nap, I was busy catching up on things. I was too exhausted and strung out to see objectively that I needed to let things go. I've wondered where exactly I got the ingrained notion that I needed to be a '50's housewife' along with everything else. It must have been a combination of influences...

It all comes down to a lack of respect for anything seen as women's work. Most first time parents seem to assume they'll easily take it all in their stride.

Assuming that you can be up all night and then cook meals from scratch all day wasn't due to a 'lack of respect for women's work', surely? It was just bad time-management.

We're only 'knackered' when we stop putting ourselves first. When we put ourselves in first place as individuals, regardless of whether we are mothers, employees, partners etc, then the balance of life has us at the centre, top-slot, and others fitting in around us. When women place themselves in second, third or fourth place to partners, children, employers etc., they can't be surprised if they get taken for granted, exploited and feel that something's not right. There are no prizes for selflessness .... a big myth, very popular in the '50's housewife' fantasy world, that we still struggle to get past. Anyone reading that last paragraph and thinking 'how selfish'... that's exactly what I mean.

I think it was 'lack of respect for women's work' that made me believe that caring for one baby should not take so much of my energy and time, and that I should easily be able to also manage the cooking, ironing, cleaning etc. I had the idea that my baby being more demanding than most was down to my failings as a mother, rather than simple bad luck. I don't think it is just me, motherhood comes as a massive shock to so many of us, because the challenges tend to be downplayed.

I agree with your last paragraph. It is the airplane analogy again. In the event of a crash, you fit your own oxygen mask first. Then you are in a position to help your children and other passengers.

A selfless, worn out shell of a woman, is not in a position to maintain strong relationships, and that includes bonds with her dc.

that happened to me HoleyGhost. I thought, anyone can do it, any old thicko can look after a baby, why can't I do it and thrive..? And then I realised I was wrong. Women aren't thick, at all. They're as clever as hell, that is how they survive motherhood with everything working against them! I admire all mothers so much now!! Shame society doesn'T share my view

as for the original question, perhaps it's got something to do with everyone imagining they would have been middle class in the fifties and therefore would neeever have had to work in the factories alongside the masses of working class women who did so?

just throwing ideas around, really

Because it is a fantasy and we are all knackered. I would imagine all of us would like more time with our children as well.

In the holidays particularly the summer ones I get to live my 1950s fantasises, and I recognise it as such. Dp works and I run the home. Our house is immaculate, I cook proper meals, I see, I play with dd, I gather fruit to make jam etc. We are so much happier. Of course I can only afford to buy the food, live somewhere that has a big kitchen and a room for sewing and craft etc becaue for most of the year I am working in excess of 15 hours a day.

Many of us have a shit work life balance, our children feel sidelined and we are too knackered for sex. No wonder we indulge ourselves in these silly fantasies.

Amen! Agree with a lot of what's been said. Read Revolutionary Road (Richard Yates) for a great portrayal of a less than perfect 50's (60's?) household....

So women now are so burnt out trying to do everything and be everything that the rose tinted view of staying home and letting the husband make decisions sounds easier? Like life has got so hard and there are so many choices to make that they just give up the responsibility?

It would be just as pertinent a question to ask "What is the appeal of the being a doctor thing" or "the being a teacher thing." Being a "housewife" is a job, like any other job. It has a certain image and people who haven't actually done the job have beliefs about what it's like, when in fact the reality can be quite different. Many people believe teaching is a cakewalk, you have long holidays, you're lord and master of your own classroom etc. In reality it has its stresses and downsides like any other job, some people are good at it and others are not. However, because being "housewife" is a woman's job it tends to be looked at with derision, even by other women. Kirsty Allsop has made a programme about what it's like to be a woman interested in craft, Jamie Oliver has made a programme about teaching teenagers. Both of them present an unrealistic view of the actual job of being a "crafty" mum or a teacher. Both of them are primarily intended to be entertainment.

I'm a SAHM. I'm completely dependent on my husband for money, the way a teacher is completely dependent on the LEA for money. If my husband left me I'd have to go on the dole, the same way a teacher would have to go on the dole if he/she lost his/her job. I am sick of having to justify myself to people who question why I'm a SAHM - I don't ask other people to justify why they're doctors or lawyers or scientists. Staying at home, looking after my child and running the house is my job. It can be shit but on the whole I love it and I feel very lucky to have my dream occupation. Not many people can say that. I don't aspire to a "50s housewife" I just aspire to do my job well, same as anyone else.

Oh and I find the implication made by some people on this thread that if you stay at home it means you have no ambition and you want to be looked after by someone else really misogynistic. Women generally feel a strong attachment to their children and have a desire to be with them. If they are made to feel, by other women no less, that fulfilling that desire is somehow a cop out and a failure then how is that a positive thing from a feminist point of view? Surely it should be the case that any life choice a woman makes should be supported, even if it is a "traditional" one. It seems to me that the model for "success" is a male model - making lots of money, working up the career ladder, working long hours to gain prestige. There seems to an attitude that traditionally "female" things, such as having and looking after children, need to just fit in around careers, and that without a career you're not a success, you're automatically trapped and unhappy. I can see why being a SAHM wouldn't appeal to every woman, but to imply that it's just an invalid choice full stop is very narrow minded IMO.

Cailin, your argument is veering in the other direction.

The value of having your own career is that you are able to support yourself and your children, without the need to depend on others (husband/partner/family/state) who may not always be there when needed.

Cailin - "It would be just as pertinent a question to ask "What is the appeal of the being a doctor thing" or "the being a teacher thing." Being a "housewife" is a job, like any other job"

I said "What is so appealing about the 1950s stereotype of a housewife?" in my original post and what I meant was what is the appeal of the stereotype of a perfect wife in a perfect home when that didn't exist even in the 50s. Sort of a question of why people would willingly put on the rose tinted glasses - surely it would lead to disappointment as life just isn't perfect.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. What I meant was a lot of jobs have a stereotypical image that is very appealing - that's why I mentioned the image people have of teaching. Some of the people I trained with when I did my PGCE clearly had no idea of what teaching involved - they were looking at the job with rose tinted glasses, and yes they were disappointed when they actually started teaching and realised what was involved. What I was objecting to was the general implication in some of the posts that there is little or nothing positive about being a housewife and therefore anyone who does have a rose-tinted view of it is delusional. I had very high expectations of being housewife and I think the reality has actually surpassed those expectations, so having a positive view of the housewife's role isn't automatically a bad thing.

TheSmallClanger - I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Your argument is veering in the other direction" - could you elaborate?

I agree that having a career is valuable as it provides financial stability. However, relying on a career for security is no less risky than relying on a partner - a person can just as easily lose a job as they can lose a partner. As someone else said upthread, living your life as though breakup is inevitable - ie not relying on your partner for fear they will let you down - isn't necessarily the best way to live.

Academic study calling! My head is now surfacing from 6 years of domestic duty, and I've been reading up on feminism, and would love to follow a (standalone?) course on Gender/Feminism. Has anyone got any experience they are keen to share? Local college doesn't offer anything, so I may take an OU course but can't see one specific to this area? I live in Sussex.

Jollyboysmum - I think you should start a thread in the feminism topic so more people see it.
I am sure there are people who can help with your question but they may not all be on this thread.

As a single parent I am even more ambitious to boost my career than I was before dd as I realise that I cannot really rely on anyone else to bring in the goods. Sadly that means some sacrifice but I am willing to make those. I would like to have the option though.

Because being a SAHM is really lovely if you have enough money to outsource the bits that bore you and you can just focus on all the bits you really enjoy all day!

Ha ha amen to that bonsoir!

Bonsoir: I'm not sure I like your tone.I AM a SAHM and it's not all sweetness and light.After I've been for a coffee with the girls and had my nails done there's hardly any time left in the day for doing the housework and before you know it it's teatime!

I know, I find it hard to fit in all the fun too

No women in my family have ever been housewives.
All worked ft Inc me
It's a Middle class social construct.
Bares no reality to the work and contribution of working women
I have no idea why anyone would aspire to be economically inactive and Wee wifey 1950s style

Scottishmummy - people aren't mere economic units, although Capitalism would have you believe so

I am so damn sick of the SAHM/WOHM divide, it detracts from more important issues

And most women wouldn't be able to work if they couldn't pay other women minimal wage to look after the children. After all someone has got to do it

But this isn't just a feminist issue, it is a very human one. Are we only valuable in so far as we can earn and climb the hierarchy?

And yes of course we need enough money to feed the family and have a roof over our head, but wealth is so unequally distributed that many work merely for luxury whilst the ones that are really struggling cannot work at all