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?

It seems that the experiments in Sweden show that not only do womens wages increase but it is likely that the taxpayer saves because men are less likely to leave because they have bonded with their dcs. It could put Jeremy Kyle out of business.

It seems to me from Sweden that it has turned out that men want what the women have-they want a work/life balance rather than a top position.

I am all for women working. Although I stayed at home while mine were small I wasn't alone with 4 walls and the hoovering, as Xenia, appears to think. I didn't do any more housework than I did working. I would go spare in that sort of situation. I did lots of things at an adult level too-I just didn't get paid. (e.g. unpaid treasurer etc).

I just don't think that you can hold up the Blairs as some sort of example of couples where it works brilliantly-something has to give and my guess is time with DCs.

I still think it takes a special type of person to want that and most people want more of a balance-and there is nothing wrong in that.

I also think that it is sad that anyone working with DCs (their own or other peoples) are so undervalued.

Yes SweetTheSting, I'm aware that in theory DH has exactly the same rights to request and be granted flexible working as I do.

I know that there are some men who do reduce their hours or scale back their careers whilst their DC are small, but you must admit that it is still rare. Particularly if the mother is also already doing so, where there is then perceived to be less need for the father to also do so.

My DD was recently in hospital. I went with DD in the ambulance whilst DH followed in the car. It was me who stayed in overnight with her whilst DH went home and then went back to work the next day. The ambulance crew, the doctors and nurses in the hospital and my employer all accepted without question that I would not be leaving DDs side and would certainly not be back in work until she was well enough. DHs employer were fairly relaxed about him having the one day off at short notice (out of his annual leave) and to be fair showed an appropriate amount of concern for our DD, but were also very keen to be reassured that he would be back in work the next day

Men technically have the same rights as women to flexible working, but in practice women are granted more flexibility and understanding when it comes to their DCs than men. Which is unfair to both parties, because it makes it more difficult for men to equally share parenting (where they want to) and places the emphasis on the mother.

exotic not sure why you feel that working is a tiny part of peoples lives - its a massive part .
I love my job and have worked in Healthcare for many years .Its challenging,interesting and I have enormous pride in the difference I make to peoples lives.

Obviously some people are unhappy/unfulfilled in their jobs but that can be the case whether they have DC or not.

The part that work plays in people's identities varies hugely from one person to another. It is quite possible to have a very "big" job but not to feel defined by it, and it is also quite possible to have a "small" job and for it to assume a huge importance in someone's self-regard.

Perhaps the difference in experiences relates to the area of that persons life that you/I meet them in Bonsoir .Work/Socially/school etc

However I havent met a single person in a so called top job or those in vocational jobs who arent highly defined by what they do.
Some people will also be highly motivated whatever they do-a cleaner may have the work ethic/love their job .
Im not sure why it is seen as a negative thing to define yourself by something you have put effort/time and committment into and which hopefully you enjoy

exotic I also think that it is sad that anyone working with DCs (their own or other peoples) are so undervalued

what way do you mean undervalued? financially?

oh & who is doing the undervaluing?

My DP isn't defined by his job (he's CEO of a retail chain) - he has the personality to fit the job rather than the other way round, IYSWIM. It's second nature to him but he can take or leave it.

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if I repeat.

IMO we are never going to achieve equality in the home (and specifically wrt childcare and child-related admin) until and unless many more part time or flexible jobs are available, and they pay enough and are interesting enough.

The great majority of jobs are still designed for a person who will work 9-6 or often longer, 5 days a week or more.

It is seriously hard work to try to run family life with two parents doing full time jobs. It's possible but it requires (1) excellent reliable childcare and (2) willingness for both parents to miss out on a lot of time with their children.

There are relatively few part time or flexible jobs available, and many of those that are available do not pay enough to cover 50% of family living costs, and/or are at a "lower level" than full time jobs.

For these reasons, most families end up defaulting to the model of one full time WOH parent and one SAH or part time parent. Which inevitably means that one parent does the majority of domestic duties.

mini, you ignore the sexism issue. You assume women do that. I is not the fact that markets work on the basis of market forces that mean muggins mummies accept a dross deal time and time again whilst their husbands maintain career progression. Even if you believe it's impossible to have a family and 2 careers (it's not impossbile at all, thousands of us manage it) there is no reason women should be the ones lumbered with the dull stuff at home. They need assert themselves better and nor marry sexist men.

Xenia, I didn't assume women are always the ones who take the SAH or part time role (though of course that is what usually happens).

The OP's question was about equality in the home - i.e. 50/50. Your scenario where the man is the one lumbered with the dull stuff at home is not equal either. It's just as unequal but the other way round.

I didn't say it's impossible to have a family and 2 careers, I said it's seriously hard work. You did it, and my hat is off to you, but you have unusual amounts of energy, I believe, and you love your job more than most people.

My point is that at the moment the only real options for us are either (1) both partners work full time (very hard work) or (2) one partner works full time and the other doesn't work or works part time (unequal).

I would prefer option (3) both work say 70% of full time and share the domestic stuff. But that isn't an option at present, because our jobs are simply not available on a reduced hours basis. Which applies to many jobs.

I agree Hope but the OP's post was talking about equality in a stricter sense, i.e. both partners sharing work and domestic stuff 50/50. So that's what I mean when I say option (2) is "unequal" - it doesn't satisfy the OP's definition of equal.

I think of equality at home as when both individuals value themselves and their contribution (in whatever form it may be) and also value the other person and their contribution (in whatever form it is). So for me, if a woman wants to work then a couple should be prepared to take a short term hit on costs and invest in the long term. I read on here many times that women give up work because the net income after deducting childcare costs against the woman's salary is negligible. Its such a short term outlook and for me is the beginning of both the husband and the wife devaluing the woman and her contribution. Everything else seems to follow on from that decision.

I also have the personal perspective that both of you can have "high powered" careers plus a happy homelife where you share childcare/housework but I think that is not really possible (or incredibly difficult) if the work environment doesn't help, For example, you are both in the City and both do transactional work.

Yes, novice, it all flows from that. We worked for a year where the nanny cost was the same as one of our salaries, ie one of us worked at loss. We certainly didn't work out which one of us it was as it was the same salary for each of us but looked at the long term. Part of the issue is some men and women pick jobs that are so low paid they will never increase earnings at any time over a 40 year career. Other careers your income increases often hugely as you get more experience sometimes 10 fold or more.

In today's Times (behind the firewall) is a very very sexist article about a working mother complaining about the fairness that then results - that the chidlren might stay with her househusband after divorce. Women with those sorts of views give working mothers a bad name - they want to have their cake and eat it. Fairness is as much about rights for men as women.

Everyone would like to have their cake and eat it and you are a major culprit, Xenia .

I have a friend who was the breadwinner with a SAH husband. When they divorced, she packed him back off to Sweden (where he was from), penniless, and the children stayed with her. It wasn't that difficult to argue in court that his contribution to the family had been zilch (friend had files and files of nanny payslips as back up). The negotiation of splitting of assets and children on divorce is not cut and dried and will depend on real contributions made.

Amazing how many women on this thread seem to think housework and hours and hours of childcare is really interesting. How weird. Obviously all working parents like to spend some time with their children but few find it so interesting they think it's on a par with practising an interesting profession surely? Amazing coincidence that all the time it's the women who want to be home with the mop and their men are more than content to go out there and earn £100k plus in a fun career.

xenia you really seen incapable of learning.. How many times does it need to be said, that most people, ( men or otherwise) earn nowhere near £100,000? Why are you talking about the irrelevant 1%? It's just not very interesting to focus on such a tiny percentage of the working population.

most people on higher incomes have more influence at work so can push through changes regarding equality.

£100K is a piddling amount of money definitely not worth leaving the house for. £1 million might just entice me to.

£100,000 was just for illustration purposes. I wasn't suggesting people could live on it.... laughing as I type. It's a relevant thing though. If Bonsoir's live in partner were a refuse worker on 15k euros a year she and he might indeed think it worth her working to earn 25,000 euros a year.