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?

but out illustrates nothing except how completely abnormal the starting point of both you and bonsoir are.as saf was saying earlier.

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?

No more amazing than thinking that people would want to be head of BP. Give me childcare any day-much more interesting.
I do actually agree with you over the Times article Xenia. The mother was never there, the father did all the work and she thought she should get them 'because she was the mother'. Equality works for the bad as well as the good.

I should say that I don't expect everyone to find childcare interesting-I just get irked with the idea that we are all the same and we all find the same things interesting or boring-we don't.

Is this actually saying that anyone who has a job as nanny, nursery nurse really wants to be head of a company? If so why do you want someone looking after your DC in a job they don't really want, or have to have because they can't do better? I would prefer to have someone looking after my DCs who is in their first choice of job and wouldn't want to do anything else-even if they had the opportunity.

Thank you so much everyone for your comments and replies. I tried to read everyone's but I'm usually caught up either at work or working at home, so time is scarce :)

I loved to hear women's opinions on the subject of equality because I am a firm believer that equality really matters, not only between genders, but also between social classes, ethnicity and in every area of life.

I'm particularly interested in gender equality because I do feel that we live in very complex world that sends women and young girls very conflicting messages.

On the one hand, there is the issue of choice. We CAN choose not to work, not to get an education, not to progress on a career path. But does that make it OK?

My only fear with choosing to be a SAHP for many years in that it literally means that, consciously or unconsciously, we are sending the message that women who marry a "rich husband" will be the ones who are better off. Why bother with university and work, and careers when we can become a pretty Stepford wife and live in a comfortable, high tech cage with all the gadgets?

I'm very sad when I see girls these days whose major aspirations seem to become a footballer's wife. I would dread to have a daughter like that, but to be honest, are there any other relevant options really?

I studied, loved university, loved what I learned. I wasn't that lucky in the world of work, but tried to do my best. I wanted to be independent, both in financial and intellectual terms.

Now, at nearly forty, I find myself doing a lot housework, getting paid very little in my "paid job", depending to a high extent on my partner's income with the default option that if he's no longer by my side, I might become dependent on the estate.

It's OK, I guess. I love my children and I love spending time with them and seeing them grow. But I don't feel it is a fair world for most women at the moment and the only way I can foresee some sort of change is by people at the top being aware of this situation and doing something about it.

The introduction of compulsory paternity leave is definitely a step forward. But also a change of attitude in work habits and expectations. The public sector seems to be moving slowly in that direction with flexible working and job shares. The big question is, will the private sector ever be willing to make changes in that direction?

If you read the Times you will see there have been several articles recently and it is all changing. There is one today by Eleanor Mills called 'the big flip' where women earn more than their husbands-very common and will soon be normal according to her.
I was quite impressed by the link to Sweden where male graduates were more interested in work/life balance than status and salary.

TripleRock, I do agree it's rare amongst the fathers and mothers I know for the fathers to work flexibly. I think it's a shame that's the case.

As long as it's always ''expected" by employers and to an extent by workers that the mother will take the time off for illness etc and not either parent, it will impact both fathers and mothers. I make a point when I take a day's leave at short notice of mentioning DH will cover the fOllowing day or whatever, just to make it clear at my work we see this as a parental issue not a mother issue.

If employers thought that all persons of parenting age not just women could require time off at some point for children's illnesses, nursery pickups etc then I would hope it would lessen discrimination. Which is one reason I am sad that the legal right to flexible working is not exercised 50:50 by gender (I have no stats to hand but don't feel out on a limb postulating that!)

Sorry, wish I could lock the post message button on my iPhone somehow!

It depends on the nature of the job. There is no flexibility in teaching so DH had to do orthodontist appointments pick ups etc.

marga, I agree with you and it is a political and moral choice to become a secondary or non earner which damages other women and is very anti feminist.

What we need to look at is why those who are perhaps more reluctant lower earners on the thread are so. You were unlucky with work. So was any of that about gender issues or parental lack of expectations or perhaps not the right career advice given to you as a teenager or a thought you could just rely on male income for life? Also compare that to your partner. Why does he earn more? Does he work harder? Has he got better exam results? Is his IQ higher? Did he have more parental or school encouragement? Did he decide to be a doctor not a care home worker or whatever?

I still see this as more of a personal issue amd that's why I said earlier it comes down to how much one values themselves and their contribution. Dh values me as an equal and so his actions reflect this. For example, a few months ago when we both had international business travel he voluntarily cancelled his meeting to the amazement of his colleagues, because in his judgment, my meeting was more important than his. He works in an environment in which all the men are high earners with sah wives and therefore one could say that his workplace wouldn't be supportive of my career, however I look to him and not them and its up to me to reinforce equality in my own home and not "society".

novice, I agree that women do have to fight their own battles, but maternity leave is a govt policy that promotes to continuation of inequality.

I wonder if the main influence is our parents. In my social group, women have copied their parents work balance. So the both parents work families, the women work and the sahm families the women sah.

i had childcare from 18 months and i think it worked for me. I went to kindergarten when i was 3 and remember thinking the other children didn't 'get it'. I have aways been a 'get out there and meet people/ have adventures/ somewhat fearless type if person' and i dont know if this is why liked meeting my carers or if doing that at a young age developed me into that type of person.

Xenia, I've got two qualifications in languages, a BA and a MA with a distinction. My husband has a BA only but he works in IT. I have always been employed and worked hard at all the jobs I had.

I don't think my IQ is lower than him but it could be that my abilitities are not worth as much as his in the present job market. If he works harder and longer is because it makes sense financially, not a choice but rather "the only option that made financial sense".

My parents never suggested in any way that the only way in life was to get a husband. On the contrary, they divorced when I was little and my mum always worked. I never lived in the typical traditional family set up and maybe that's why I find it quite difficult to accept when I always see wormen taking care of most of the domestic work while men go out in the world to earn money and progress in their careers. My father always pushed me to get an education and find a job, and he remarried a strong feminist woman, who I absolutely admire.

The implication that if you earn less it's because you are lazy or not very intelligent is another way of justifying the club of white guys at the top earning big salaries and making everybody else play by their rules. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I think a lot of choices are personal and political at the same time. If you are a mum and work full time, it is a personal choice but it has political implications. It means that you will need child care and somebody has to pay for it. It means that the government has to make decisions about that cost.

I don't think being valued for the work you do is the same as being independent. Why didn't David Cameron or Tony Blair chose to "be valued" for doing housework all day rather than to get into politics and have a career? It would be unthinkable for an Eton educated man to chose that route. Why is it OK for educated women to be just "valued" not paid?

There is also the question of which jobs are paid the most. Most jobs usually done by men are paid a lot more than jobs usually done by women. Eg. plumbers get paid a lot more than nannies or childminders, care workers or domestic workders. And that's why it also makes financial sense for women to stay more at home when couples have children.

So was any of that about gender issues or parental lack of expectations or perhaps not the right career advice given to you as a teenager or a thought you could just rely on male income for life? Also compare that to your partner. Why does he earn more? Does he work harder? Has he got better exam results? Is his IQ higher? Did he have more parental or school encouragement? Did he decide to be a doctor not a care home worker or whatever?

No gender issues. I have 2 brothers and was never treated any differently and expectations were exactly the same.
I didn't take career advice-I knew what I wanted to do and I went for it.
I never assumed that I would get married or even have a partner so I was prepared to do it all myself.
My DH earns more because his job is important to him and he is ambitious.
I have better exam results. I would say our IQs are about the same.
Our family backgrounds were similar. Way back to my grandmother they thought work important. My cousin has asked why our grandmother pushed the girls more than his father-the only boy.
He would hate to be a doctor and he wouldn't be any good at a caring career.

I am actually very successful. When I set my mind to something I do it. However I became a teacher because I love working with DCs. I don't want to be a Head, advisor-work in Education department etc. I would have happily tootled along teaching in a nice part of the country until retirement if I hadn't had a partner or DCs. On reflection I might have done something different. Child psychologist interests me-but again happy to tootle along in a nice country town-no desire to write papers-get 'a name' etc.
Apart from that archivist, genealogist, work with National Trust or museums-not going to earn much but tremendously enjoyable.

I don't have DDs but encourage DSs to go for whatever they want as a career-would do the same for DDs.

Since you seem set on a doctor as a suitable career I would say absolutely no to hospitals and cutting people up. Again it would be GP in a nice little country town, or work in a hospice or the community. Midwife attracts me most.
If I had a business I would choose a bookshop and run a 'quirky' one.They don't however pay.
I would run a mile from anything to do with boards, meetings and politics.

Being self sufficient in a remote place in the countryside has a lot of appeal!

The reason I ask these questions is because time and again we have women married to men who earn more. Now it might be they saw that man as a meal ticket. It might be that they have the same job but male pay is higher eg if male GPs get more than female GPs (which is not so). It might be because of sexism at home - he forces the woman to clean so she cannot put in the over time at work. it might be that women naturally love childcare and cleaning and tend to hate work so are at home which I hope is not so and that it's a gender neutral issue.

I don't think maternity rights have led to this either. You only get 6 weeks on 90% pay and after that it drops in most jobs to an absolute pittance which no one can live on so really it's 6 weeks paid against the men who get 2 weeks unpaid. That 6 week difference simply reflects women having to recover from a birth.

I have never said people earn less because they are lazy as plenty of cleaners work 3 jobs and some longer hours than I do and are not lazy although on the whole those who are very successful tend to work very hard and those who can hardly bother to get out of bed and are on the dole are lazier (and plenty at the moment are on the dole and not lazy because there are no jobs to be had of course). I was just looking at the reasons all these women just happen to have much much higher earning husbands on so many mumsnet threads.

he forces the woman to clean so she cannot put in the over time at work.

Which century are you living in Xenia?!

I think that you have to have a more flexible mind. People, of either sex, no longer go to school, go to university, get job and work to the top. They do all sorts of things at all ages. Someone was asking on a thread today whether they are too old to start medical training at 34yrs-of course they are not. There was an 80yr old woman on Breakfast TV still hands on and running her own private company (she didn't look anything like 80yrs).
A friend's DS did Maths at Cambridge-became an actuary for a few years and is now teaching maths at an inner city comprehensive-he gets job satisfaction-there is nothing to say he won't change again.
My brother did a year at university-dropped out-messed around in labouring jobs-went back and did something completely different and has since had a completely different change of career again. My other brother earned a lot of money abroad, spent time being self sufficient,then ran his own company and is now back on his original career track. I have 3 friends who have had time out of teaching being SAHMs and gone back and are Head teachers.
I have had a complete change-who knows what I might want to do in the future? I don't!

You only get one life. If it suits you to be one tracked on a single career path and you know where you are going-fine but it is equally fine not to. If you want to have a year off writing a novel-why not if you can afford it?

Sorry-I lost the thread-I intended to say that you only get one life and so you might as well do what you want to do and not someone else's view of what you 'ought' to do.

Xenia none of your reasons apply to me and DH. I chose a very high earning career - I just happened to end up with someone who, after we got together, switched to an even higher earning career.

As I say, the solution IMO is not enabling women to get jobs which are full time and demanding and allow them to do very little childcare/housework (and therefore their DH has to do most of it). In other words, to take the traditionally "male" role. That way we just end up with inequality in the other direction.

The solution is enabling men and women to get jobs which allow them to do 50% of the childcare/housework each.

I find it bizarre that we have in the UK a combination of ever increasing unemployment and ever increasing hours and stress for those who are employed. Surely it would make sense for those hours to be distributed between more people? Yes it would mean a decrease in pay, but if that meant people had more time at home, they would have to spend less on childcare etc. And it might mean that both partners in a couple could work f/t rather than just one.

When I was in my late 20s my long-term live-in boyfriend earned less than me (not when we started going out, because he had a couple of years on me career wise, but mid-way through I bypassed his earnings). I hated it that he couldn't keep pace with me and that I would never, ever be able to envisage a comfortable family life with him without continuing to work flat out. So I threw him out and found someone who lived life at the same pace as me!

xenia no gender issues here either. DH and I both have law degrees from Oxbridge, then we both began our articles in city firms. I was at a slightly more prestigious firm that he.

Unfortunately I just found corporate work boring! I tried to love it like my DH did, honestly I tried. I closed my eyes and thought of the cash for a few years but ultimately you only get one life, no?

So I switched to crime and family law and had a ball. I was promoted very quickly and was just about to be made a judge when I quit.

But the reality is that though I was well paid by normal standards, DH had been made up and was earning silly money. When we decided that one of us would have to give up, the answer was obvious: we like having lots of money so DH should continue.

I suppose we could both have carried on but it would have been simply horrible for the DC.

I find the subject of why we choose to work in the way that we do very interesting. My dp works his **s off as he has an extremely strong work ethic.

I had a very hardworking mother as well (and father) but I am a SAHM. I try to work part time when it suits, but my experience as a child, hardly seeing my own mother at home, makes home life my priority.

I never saw DP as a meal ticket (!) but I know that one of the reasons he works so hard is because he knows we depend on him. It's what makes him tick. I think that's what evades a lot of xenia type feminists - most of us make decisions based on what is best for the family and not just what we think is best for ourselves.

marga73 says: "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?"

I'm naive too in that I think this should be the case as well. Try putting this brave statement on the Guardian cif and reel at the btl comments that would inevitably follow. I'm afraid you and I live in la la land. But we can dream.

Your post is just so god good.