Equality at home - Can this really be achieved?

[marga73]

There is an issue I've been wanting to discuss for a long time. It's the issue of equality inside the house.

Even though women now work and are able to gain respectable positions in the workplace, and we can say that some level of equality has been attained, it seems to me that once they have children, women lose more than men in terms of work opportunities and financial independence. And all because the house and the children still seem to be a "woman's job".

It's all great to find women who are happy being the SAHP, but don't these women feel sometimes that being 100% financially dependent on their husbands is frustrating? Doesn't this situation make them feel trapped and powerless? Is it OK for women to sacrifice their independence for the sake of their children and the house keeping?

I work part-time, and have two small children, and still feel trapped sometimes. I'm grateful in many ways that my husband earns enough so we don't have to worry about paying for mortgage, food, childcare etc - and I contribute to this too - but I feel it's far beyond from the ideal I had when I was young and it really annoys me. If I'm honest, it makes me very angry.

I would like a society where men and women work part time, share domestic tasks 50/50, and look after their children part time, and therefore pay for everything on equal terms. Is this too much to ask in the fierce capitalist society we live today? Am I naive to think that should be the case?

You are the one defending your very odd use of the expression "mind" for what a SAHP does with their children. I was just picking you up on that, and pointing out that "minding" is not an adequate description of what most thinking parents do with their children.

I know plenty of Filipina nannies who mind children. They keep them safe, and they keep them clean. And that is it.

Bonsoir I explained my meaning. If that is still not clear to you then I really cannot help you. I could look through your posts for odd words but I won't, its silly and not very constructive.

I know nannies of many nationalities who do much more than this! What class of nanny are you coming across.

This is bizarre and I am busy minding caring for my children so I must run!

Thing is, however positively we describe it, many women simply don't want to do it full time. And that's not simply because it isn't valued as much as working by society. They just don't want to. As many men don't want to.

Time and again, here on MN we see women who are bored and unhappy with their role as SAHP, yet they have little freedom to do otherwise. However grandiose one tries to make it sound, it won't make those women any less the victim of sexism.

The big problem for women (men don't seem to encounter this problem as much) is that they don't want to bring up their children FT and they don't want to work FT. But the working world is, by and large, designed for FT workers.

Do you think it is sexism or capitalism that is the root cause of most jobs being FT, wordfactory?

Now that does seem to be true.
I most certainly did not want to be a full time SAHP. I tried it and hated it!
But nor did I want to work full time (+) and use full time child care.

I managed to carve out a career that is largely flexible around the DC, but most of the women I know didn't have that option and so gave up work altogether. For the most part they have made the best of it, but it isn't what they wanted per se. And seven, ten, twelve years down the line they are finding it impossible to find the sort of work they want.

That is a really interesting post vezzie. Not silly at all IMO.

I agree with you that all children should have the same opportunities and that that is the responsibility of society as a whole.

Good question Bonsoir.

I suppose the nature of the market cares not a jot for the sex of the worker. It needs to be fed.

However, the fact that so often it seems to be women, not men, who give up their careers must have some sexist component. It can't be (indeed isn't among my anecdotal circle of girlfriends) that we all had a huge desire to be SAHPs. There was no biological driver to give up our hard fought careers and take over the domestic responsibilities. We just ended up doing so out of...pargamatism perhaps? Or unrealistic ideals that we could easily get back into the work place?

wordfactory:
"I suppose the nature of the market cares not a jot for the sex of the worker. It needs to be fed."

This is not true. Markets are not inanimate forces of nature. Markets are the results of the collective wills of sentient people.
many of whom hate women

for that matter, markets aren't always right (either ethically, or in bringing about best possible economic outcomes)
Nor are markets beyond attempts to defy them (they can and should be changed by laws created for the good of human beings)

domestic inequality goes deeper than the reality that children need to be looked after, and exists in cases where there are no children too. (though less visibly usually)

reallocating material responsibility for children to society at large is a great idea but I have now decided that it won't make any difference as men will still think women are there to serve them (even if they are being substantially supported in looking after the children) (or worse scenario, even more)

Or - would it break the link? would men not be able to use the excuse that "she would be doing tea for the kids anyway" / "doing the laundry for the kids anyway" etc to lie about doing nothing?

Why do these threads never mention maternity pay? If I have a child, it won't be me as a SAHP - it'll be MrVG.

We will lose money that way. Lots of money. MrVG will not be paid by the state, or by his company, to stay at home.

Financially, me, MrVG and any miniVGs will be miles and miles better off if we toe the line. I stay home, we keep MrVG's money, we get my maternity pay. And I don't/won't earn so very much that chucking away an income for a year isn't going to affect us.

Thing is, there's all these studies that demonstrate that patterns of care are set during a child's only life, or that the 'wifework' of childcare (doctor's appointments, vaccinations, etc) are established during this only time.

Suddenly it looks very much like I should be aiming my ire squarely at the state and not at my partner...

The problem is that high powered jobs are full time. It doesn't matter if the worker is male or female, they are going to be resented by the childless if they happen to want get away early, have school holiday times etc.
Office politics are such that you will miss out if you are not there part of the time and opportunities will be seized by others while you are not there.
I know of one female MP who has sent her DCs to boarding school, it is the only way she can cope with the hours. They all seem quite happy with that (they are older).
I am not prepared to send mine away to school and I am not prepared to miss a parent's evening or a school play production, even if my DH can go, because they come before work. Therefore I am never going to get into an important position-even if I wanted it.
Communication is never 100%-in my part time jobs I always miss things, and then get 'sorry, I thought everyone knew'.

Well, I want all of what you don't want, exotic, but the state doesn't recognise my future family set up through any financial recompense.

Why do women's jobs have to be super-duper high-powered or rare to qualify for recognition? Like tha vast majority of men (at the moment), I suspect, my job is neither particularly high-powered nor highly paid; it is, however, one that is not compatible with being the primary carer for much of my life.

There's nothing that says MrVG can't take this role: except a lack of paternity leave and pay.

Good point about the maternity pay Victor
Whilst it does enable women to recover from pregnancy/ birth/breastfeed/bond I would like to see Parental Leave that can be shared equally .
It would then become normal for men to take career breaks in the same way women do.
Mr Baggins would have juped at the chance to share Parental Leave

jumped !

Actually, that shouldn't just be that men's jobs aren't compatible with primary caring - that was a garbled way of saying that most men retain fulltime employment after becoming parents.

Most fulltime work is incompatible with primary caring, that's why one partner (mostly women, at the moment) end up quitting. I don't have a job that can't be done part time (unless I was to accept a salary so low that I can't afford food). Actually, it could be done if I accepted a job share (which I would) but they don't exist in my field.

Primary caring, of course, is incompatible with work. Leaving to go to doc's appointments, pick-ups from school, etc. Working part-time earns you less than half of a fulltime wage; your pension suffers. Even possessing a womb - we're around the same age, but it's me who has gets the enquiring remarks about future families/conception/the 'danger' of employing a woman who has not yet had her children.

Women are penalised for the children they do and don't have! Men aren't.

Most people will become parents - work should change. The state should recognise a variety of family set ups. Why can't both parents work part-time, if that's what they want, without being penalised in the myriad ways that currently make their life hard?

I agree with MrsBaggins - if the state made it financially possible for men to stay at home in the same fashion that women can now, we might see a real reflection of who wants to stay at home. Although as far as I'm aware, the Scandanavian countries had to introduce penalties and incentives to get men to take it - social attitudes are so, so hard to change.

Best get started now then!

"the problem is that highpowered jobs are fulltime"
where did highpowered come from?

Exactly vezzie; last time I looked, almost all work that earns you a living-ish wage (albeit a low one in plenty of circs) is fulltime work.

The government has, of course, just made that even more entrenched by upping the hours one has to work before tax credits can be claimed.

i would like parental leave to be swappable between both parents - you choose who uses the leave.

I am a small business owner. Mr TM works in education & manages lots on womens' ML.

ML doesnt apply to us in any way. its just something for others.

The issue of hourly wages diminishing significantly the fewer hours are worked is a deadly serious one.

I know quite a few women on EUR 150,000 - EUR 200,000 a year. Good money and right at the top of the income scale for workers who barely travel overnight. They cannot take a promotion because they would need to be more flexible about travel. They cannot reduce their working hours without taking a massive hourly paycut. A lot of them feel quite bored and trapped.

must confess it's hard to feel sorry for someone's boredom when they're bringing in 150k plus.

do it another year and then quit.

not exactly hard life is it it?

This is really interesting actually.

I'm just doing a small research task and have been scanning some surveys and questionnaires I've had back on family composition and time use. What surprised me was seeing that the husband lists himself as 'sharing equally in household chores and care of dependents' with his wife, but later, when filling out the detailed time use diary and other work-related questions, it becomes obvious this is not the case.

I was prepared to be shocked by how progressive my families would be, but not shocked this way! People are constantly telling me of friends they have and families they know who share equally in all aspects, but I don't really see the evidence.

One I was just flipping through listed the mother as working 40 hrs/week and spending at least 28 hrs/week on care and cooking. Husband worked 45 hours and does 7hrs of care/cooking and cares for the kids 'all week' as he writes. Yet the time use diary shows that he goes from work to the gym to the dinner table to bed... While his wife does the rest. In fact it was exhausting just to keep track of her activities in the time use diary. It would seem she takes less than an hour to herself. Of course this is just one day and one sample family but it is very interesting to see how they describe their roles.

swallowAFly - after taxes and social security, they aren't bringing home anything like EUR 150k. Take off the cost of home help and net wages are depressingly low.

Has anyone else had a look at The World Atlas of Women? It is also eye-opening.
What a lot of men and women are unaware of is that women, globally, are accountable for the vast majority (80%?) of reproductive and productive (agriculture etc) work. And yet still deemed the weaker sex, and the work we do is exploited and undervalued.

Rosmarin In the case of that particular couple it sounds like the woman has sold herself short. If women continue to do this, they cannot expect a different outcome.
On the days when I am at home, I do most of the childcare and house tasks. On the days I work the tasks are divided more evenly.
As for looking after the children in the morning and evening of the days I work, this tends to just happen more organically. We both enjoy time with them so dont see it as work iyswim.

My DH definitely has more 'free' time than me but thats fine, I bore easily and couldnt bear endless leisure.