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?

Exoticfruits: This is why affordable childcare should be state-subsidised, which it would be if the government realised (as governments of other countries have done) that industrial capitalism which only functions on the unpaid slave labour of women is a form of industrial capitalism that's going to crumble.

Hmmm...it's all very well saying which jobs should be paid more yadda yadda yadda.
But the fact is they aint going to be considered any more valuable any time soon.

The truth is that the money, the power, the decision making processes and the media, things which affect every single one of us, are in the hands of a very few people. And those people are predominantly men.

We can, in my view, never have equality or even a sniff of it, until we get more women in those positions. With that I completely agree with xenia. We need far more women in politics, the law, high end business, the media, finance etc

However, for women to get into these top positions they are, it sems we're saying, going to need partners who are willing to take a back seat in their own career to support. Just have women have done for so long.

Otherwise they are going to need to outsource virtually all their family life.I'm thinking of the Cooper/Balls partnership who have a full time live in nanny in London because they both work such long hours, who then brings the DC on the train to Yvette's constituency in Yorkshire on Friday night. Both parents then have surgery on Saturday.

I'm not convinced many of us would a. want that or b. advocate that as a good way to bring up a family.

Far better for Ed to take a back seat (not only for the sake of his family but also the country ) and support Yvette. Result: next female leader of the Labour party.

Since going back to work part time after my DD was born I'm no longer willing or able to get into the office early or stay late. Nursery pick ups and drop offs are all my responsibility as DH works prohibitively long hours. But I've found it really liberating, I realise I was working too hard before. My quality of live has vastly improved since becoming a mum and working part-time.

Household duties are shared pretty evenly between DH and me, although I do more on the days I'm at home which I think is fair. DH still cooks for us all every day and does his own ironing. Neither or us have to spend time at the weekend doing chores anymore.

Pro rata I earn slightly more than DH and even working part time my career prospects long term seem at least as good as his. Working part time enables me to complete a qualification in my spare time which will ultimately further my career or one day allow me to set up my own business.

DH would love to be a SAHP/do more parenting but his employer is less likely to agree to flexible working and less sympathetic to him taking time off at short notice than mine is. Its hard not to come to the conclusion that this is because he's a man. Not to mention the social pressure from family and society that he is under to carry on working FT.

The point I'm making is that of the two of us, it seems to be me with all the choices and opportunities, not the other way around.

But TripleRock your DH does have access to those choices and opportunities. He has just as much legal right as you do to request flexible working, as a parent of young children, and it's up to his employer to make the business case why he shouldn't have it. Equally, he has the right to take unpaid dependants' leave at short notice. At employers' discretion, this could be substitued by short notice annual leave.

If there are women in his company in similar roles who have been granted flexible working or if any women do get to use annual leave at short notice, the employer would be on shaky ground to deny it to your DH. Did he put in a flexible working request that was turned down?

My DH and I both submitted flexible working requests when we became parents and both had them granted. Men doing exactly the same role as me at work said 'oh, that sounds great what your DH is doing, I'd love to do that.' I suggested they request it as our employer would surely grant it. Those men didn't do so, and I don't believe it was for financial reasons.

I think that the most interesting part in the article about Sweden is that 'many men no longer want to be defined just by their jobs' and 'graduates are no longer looking for large pay checks but rather a work/life balance'.

This seems a wonderful way forward to me and I wish that it was more common. I have never seen why you are defined by your job, it is a small part of who you are. You can be the head of BP and be the most boring person on earth-or you can be a hospital porter and be intelligent, funny and very interesting. Most people are somewhere in-between, but you can't tell from their job.

It doesn't matter if I was a man or a woman, or how much the job paid, if it doesn't give me free time I would hate it. Most of the population are not going to want to be at the top-it takes a special sort of person.

the quotes in the article i find interesting:

?Society is a mirror of the family,? Mr. Westerberg said. ?The only way to achieve equality in society is to achieve equality in the home. Getting fathers to share the parental leave is an essential part of that.?

Introducing ?daddy leave? in 1995 had an immediate impact. No father was forced to stay home, but the family lost one month of subsidies if he did not. Soon more than eight in 10 men took leave. The addition of a second nontransferable father month in 2002 only marginally increased the number of men taking leave, but it more than doubled the amount of time they take.

.....But the daddy months have left their mark. A study published by the Swedish Institute of Labor Market Policy Evaluation in March showed, for instance, that a mother?s future earnings increase on average 7 percent for every month the father takes leave.

this looks like another step towards equality to me.

snapsnap - Miriam Gonzalez Durantez's father was a politician.

exotic re the sort of person who gets to the top - well we know the sort of person capitalism rewards - studies show that ceo's are more likely than average to have psychopathic personality traits and a lack of empathy.

just sayin'...

I put it more kindly as 'a special type of person' Basil!

I don't know why we get defined by paid work-I don't see why it needs to be mentioned, unless you are making a point that you know from experience because of your job. I agree it is small talk when you meet someone, but do we really want to know? I certainly don't want to be around people 'talking shop' unless they are something exciting like stunt woman.

Briefly as I'm abroad on business....

1. I am not sure we should personalise it but I did not marry down. My husband had a house etc and we earned about the same for 10 years. He also worked 8,30 - 6 at school and all Saturdays and often played the organ on Sundays, 30 pupils out of school. We got on well we both have the same ethic. We did up flats together too so I donot accept that he had a lesser career (although ultimately I earned more) and thsu I could earn more. We both made the usual compromises for the family as anyone who loves their cilldren does.

1. The suggestion women cannot have good careers or only if their husband take son the mommy track is used by anti feminists to keep women down. There are huge numnbers of successful dual career couples from Nick C;s marriage to Cherie Booths. We it all the time. In fact successful people get on better with others who are the same rather than dull housewife drudge types. It is very very easy to be successful and have a family compared to little money, no power at mercy of employers etc and work. Never feel sympathy for any of us who earn quite a lot. The people in the middle and bottom have it much harder.

1. NOr does it help the cause of ambitious women who want power and money to suggest you can only want and have that if you are mentally ill. If you love your work and succeed at it you do fine. Obvoiusy the poor and unsuccessful love to think the rich are miserable and unhappy but that is just a myth they peddle. There are more people on tiny incomes with depression and stress than in top jobs.

1. What you do need is to avoid sexist men and ensure both of you have similar aims. I don't tbink it's helpful to refer to the fact I divorced after nearly 20 years ofmarriage as (a) that is llonger than most marriages and (b) it had nothing to do with housework, income, money or anything on these threads. Also it makes an assumption that a married state is somehow more desirable a thing than say living in sin or being single It's anti feminist to suggest women need men.

No one should be on these threads without remembering the old saying - a women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Whilst I think people's needs differ and that phrase isn't right for all, it is certainly just as good a life choice to live without a partner or either sex.

Hear hear xenia

Of course you don't need to be married-my argument is why do people bother if they are not happy? I married DH because I loved him, we wanted children- and our life and our DCs come before anything else. I can't think why we even need to ask what someone's job is-it is a tiny part of them and very often irrelevant.

Can we stop housewife bashing please? It's getting more than a little tedious.

exoticfruits but it's not a tiny part for everyone. Some people get a sense of pride and identity out of their jobs. Why does it have to be either or? I wouldn't want to be without my husband and children. But neither would I want to be without work.

I think most people are the same, but I draw the line at examples of

There are huge numnbers of successful dual career couples from Nick C;s marriage to Cherie Booths.

Very few people want that sort of lifestyle and I can't see it being good for DCs-they want the time of the parent-and quantity rather than quality when it happens to fit in with the job.

You may be fascinated by your job-but why should other people? Unless, as I said, it is vastly exciting and different it isn't something for interesting conversation unless you want to talk shop with other people in the job while everyone's eyes glaze over.

Well said, widow. For me, I want both a work life as well as a family life. Where we strike the balance is up to us. I would be miserable if I had to stay at home full time, although I appreciate that others can be happy doing that or don't have a choice.

I love the buzz that being around my very driven colleagues gives me. I love the suits and outfits and the sharp and nuanced discussions we can have. There is absolutely no equivalent in my life as a mother. I enjoy both aspects and would be loathe to give up either.

We need more people (Xenia etc) to remind us that going out to work can be great fun as well as financially rewarding. I am in awe of high powered couples, because that is so much more a challenging gig, than the usual high powered half and the stay at home other.

Exotic, 'Unless, as I said, it is vastly exciting and different it isn't something for interesting conversation unless you want to talk shop with other people in the job while everyone's eyes glaze over.'

I almost never talk about what I do to people outside of my work life. For precisely the reason you mention above. Which is why just being a mummy will not cut the mustard for me. I need different company.

That is fair enough blueshoes but do you really want to be an MP or be married to an MP? There is no balance in that case. Add to the mix a lawyer and how can the DCs see much of their parents?

I think that we all need different company.

Where the equality needs to be is regarding bringing up kids and running a home as having as much status as any other job rather than seeing people who do this as "dull housewife drudge types"

exotic, the irony is that the more senior you are, the more flexibility you can have to slip out during the day or delegate to juniors. It won't be predictable hours, but as a boss, you manage yourself and make things work, if you need to.

I agree that constant travel is a killer and very difficult to reconcile with a family life. But lots of jobs pay very well without over the top travelling, which is a less high octane option at least whilst the children are still at home. It is not all or nothing, as it is sometimes made out to be.

The thing is I'm nowhere near "high powered" but my husband and me both earn within the bracket which means that it's too much to get significant help with child care cost, but so little that childcare costs effectively wipe out over a third of our family's income.

The idea that people who like their job and work full time hours must be automatically be making a ton of money is idiotic. The idea that a job which is not bringing in a ton of money can't be fulfilling is as idiotic.

Thirdly, I work because I love my work. I have much wanted children who I dearly love and without who I couldn't imagine my life. And I want my children to know that when they grow up they don't need to feel the pressure to decide between a job they love and their longing for a family, as it's perfectly possible to combine both, if both parents are doing everything to make it work.

How many SAHMs really have the highpowered needs to be out of the country at short notice and therefore can't cope with paid for childcare husband?

IT's not leaving the country though is it. For lots of people in relatively lowly jobs, it's enforced overtime, or cancelled leave for a crisis, or even working on a shift rota that only gives you a few days or a week's notice.

Someone I know on minimum wage would get her shifts given her less than 7 days in advance and being on minimum wage she couldn't afford to keep anyone on retainer even with WTC childcare element. If she'd had a partner this would have been a huge help, but if he was working that particular day what was she supposed to do? She could reasonably expect him to take a day off now and again in the interests of supporting her ability to work, but she couldn't expect him to do that on an ongoing basis.