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?

most of us make decisions based on what is best for the family and not just what we think is best for ourselves.

I would agree, we chose to have DCs and I am doing what suits them best. It is a very short time-I picked up things later. I think that any family should do what suits them. Many want 50/50 childcare, but I am greedy and wanted all of it!

I think that maybe it helped that we were older parents-I knew that I wasn't missing out by being at home. Maybe if I was younger I would feel differently.

I am getting disappointed as I read the answers. Whilst we all saw the survey showing 49% or something of women now earn more than their man (where women work full time and are married) whichi s not the same as 49% in marriages, the thread shows that if teh man doesn't earn enough the woman leaves him and settles down with one who does or else if they were level pegging there is something ni girls which goes - don't want the hard work or don't like work which isn't in theirh usbands. One can only assume those husbands are conditioned by housewife or other mothers of theirs to be the big providers and girls aren't or it's because the supply of women happy to keep a man is so low men know they are on a hiding to nothing if they seek out a woman to keep them on the whole so they just have to buckle down and work hard.

In fact I was talking about it last night to someone whose ex wife (lawyer) has now settled down with someone else.. Guess what she's done? Given up her work to write as her new man is such a very high earner (and there are and will be no children). I am not saying her marriage to the first person broke down because he wasn't in the same earning bracket but there is yet another instance of that pattern - woman seeks man who can keep her either consciously or not or woman wants to do very little and have lots of free time.

Now it might be that all humans ideally would like to do very little (let us not wriet here about how hard work it is looking after along babies 24/7 as a lot of these women have help anyway and in the csae above there are no children) and that only women (and men on the dole or with trust funds) get a real choice if they are pretty and bright enough to marry higher earners to indulge that and that it is rarely a choice available to a man. I did ask the person last night the reason for his hard work (marriage broke up over it, he took one evening off in 365 days) in building the business. No children to support or desire for them. Are we saying women seek wealth less for its own sake or if they do want wealth they find it easier to obtain it through marriage than their own efforts? It's classic I suppose. Impoverished British aristocrats for years have sought a woman with an inherited fortune.

You are hugely overthinking this, Xenia. People mostly don't want to spend all their waking hours at work (especially when their material needs are already met) and do want to enjoy the comforts of home, affection and intimacy for a decent part of the time. When you have two partners in a couple working flat out, there aren't many comforts of home, affection or intimacy for them, let alone for the DCs.

We had lunch on Sunday with a charming and highly intelligent couple who have undoubtedly worked extremely hard and proudly showed us the new house they have built in central Paris (quite a feat to purchase a plot and build a house here). Their three DCs are seriously multi-talented, seriously good at school... and seriously disturbed. Given the emotional refrigerator they are expected to live in, that is not particularly surprising.

Never having found wealth I can't really say, but if you do have more than enough for your needs then it seems a good time to stop paid employment and have a much, much larger range of possibilities. Most of us are constrained by having to work and not having the time.
I can't see why stopping work to write is a disappointment.
Are you saying that writing is a waste of time? I would have thought that it was much more fulfilling than being a lawyer and it isn't as if she has given up-she has been lucky enough to try something without remuneration and she might ultimately produce something that makes her fortune and allows her DH to give up paid employment and try something else.
It was what I was saying earlier-you need more flexibility of thought! I dare say that your advice to J K Rowling would have been to stop messing around, get childcare and get back to work using her degree!

You do seem very hung up on the idea that you have to have well paid employment to be a success and that nothing else is worthwhile. Many of the world's most successful people struggled by on a pittance so they can do something really fulfilling. Some get there-e.g. J K Rowling-and some don't but they will never know unless they try.
Many people have mid life crisis because their parents force them down a 'sensible' career path when they really want to be an actor-go to art college etc.

I know many DCs like that Bonsoir and they don't want some grand house and lots of material things-they want the one thing they don't get-their parents time. They don't want quality time either-they want quantity.

These particular three children constantly tell their parents that they don't want a big house etc, that they will be perfectly happy to settle down and live in an apartment with the person they love. Their parents insist that they won't be happy that way...

Xenia - i find this thread saddening too. the gap between men and women seems to be very large.

Xenia:
"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."

One other reason that I thought of is that I think it is still more common for women to marry men who are a bit older than them. Anecdote, not data alert: though DH and I are only c3 months apart in age, most of the couples I know do still have an age gap of up to 5 years where the man is older (and where he is younger, it's usually by no more than a year).

If this is right, then for a lot of careers, there's a fairly structured salary progression at the beginning during training so if the couple are in similar careers e.g. GPs to take your example, if the DH has 4-5 years head start on the DW, he is likely to be earning more at the point of them becoming parents. No sexism per se, no unequal pay, just different levels of seniority.

I will try and look for some info about whether statistics on marriage age back me up or if I am talking out of my hat!

Wasabi: the gap is indeed large. I didn't mean to make women sad but I do think that we need to think carefully about these issues.

I don't have daughters, but the way the world is going, I would be dead worried if I did. They will not notice what's going on when they're little but as they grow up, they will notice that the world of work/business is a very tough one, and that it has been designed by men and for men.

We, as women, need to push family issues forward in a big way in the political agenda. Make men in power - who probably never did any childcare or housework at all because surely a woman did it and does it for them, whether paid or unpaid - realise how important this is.

We always hear politicians defending big business, bankers, industry, we hardly ever hear them pushing the agenda forward to in the family direction. It's like they don't really care about this area of life. It's always been marginalised.

I think the world in industrialised countries has enough resources for most people to live comfortably. But I do believe that the job market, where people have to go to get their resources, is being shaped by men only. Capitalism is patriarchal and most of our institutions are very patrialchal too. Women can only join them if they play their game. That's what many women are doing and that's why they're also able to make big money too, at the expense of anything else that's of value in their lives.

I believe the next step forward for feminism is not so much to encourage women (as in the sixties and seventies) to go out to work hard and long hours like men, it's for men to start shifting their attitudes towards family life. To make them realise that family is as important or much more, than money and business, and to start introducing policies for social engineering in order to have a more equal society that reflects those family values.

On the issue of dumping men because they don't make enough money, my God! What kind of spineless creature can say something like that?

For those women, either high earners or not, who are with men for "money", the only thing I have to say, that's the mentality of a "high class" prostitute. The worst class, because at least real prostitutes are not pretending to be anything else.

Marga the world of work/business is a very tough one i dont think this issue is relevant to women more than men. do you think it is?

Women can only join them if they play their game. i enjoy the rough & rumble of business. i dont see it as a male activity. what games do you think a woman needs to play to get on in business?

some people are a*holes but not the entire structure. ML is only available to women and that is due to govt not business.

i think women can be great in business.

rough & rumble = rough & tumble

The world of business is tough on women and men, I agree. But this affects women more than men if you have to take time off on long maternity leave, children are sick or on holiday.

Women with families usually avoid jobs in the "tough business" world because it's incompatible with family life. Not because women cannot be tough and succeed.

I agree that women can be great at business but unless you are in the right place, at the right time, and have lots of money behind you, it is very hard to run a business when children are little and need your care. It is the same if you are a man, but it's easier if you have a wife at home doing all the childcare and domestic work.

But if you both have lots of money, you're right, you can pay a nanny and you can both go out to work and be on the same level. But unfortunately, most people are not in that privileged position.

"But if you both have lots of money, you're right, you can pay a nanny and you can both go out to work and be on the same level. But unfortunately, most people are not in that privileged position."

Why do you think that earning pots of money to pay a nanny is a good solution? Children hate it when they don't see their parents enough.

I don't agree that children necessarily hate it Bonsoir - I had a nanny and enjoyed it. I saw my parents at evenings and weekends, they gave me plenty of love and attention and I got to do different things with my nanny during the weekdays.

However I also don't agree with marga that you can solve all problems if you have money/nannies. DH and I earn enough to hire a nanny, but almost all nannies will not work beyond 7 or 7.30pm and our working days often go on longer than that. Plus, nannies don't do all the domestic admin that needs doing - those endless to do lists which become so much longer when you have DCs. And there are some things you just can't outsource anyway, like looking after sick or unhappy DCs, or visiting elderly parents.

This is part of the reason why in many high earning couples, one partner chooses to give up work or go part time after DCs, instead of simply hiring a nanny. Because otherwise they would both spend their (short) evenings and weekends dealing with all the domestic admin that hadn't got done during the week. (Of course the other reason is that they actually want to see more of their children, and spend less time at work.)

minipie - I didn't write children hate having a nanny, I said children hate not seeing their parents enough, which is what often happens when both parents work a lot.

I think that earning pots of money to afford a nanny is a dreadful idea! Surely you are earning money for your family and if you can't earn it to enjoy the company of your DCs I really don't see the point.
If I was in one of these top jobs, that I am supposed to want, how would I have the time to spend with my elderly mother? She doesn't want money spent on her for help-she wants my company. My DC wants me-not for quality time-just to be there- they do not want a paid employee.
I agree with balance, you need to get out into the world to do something and earn money but it should be for quality of life for all the family.

It still hasn't been explained to me why you want someone looking after your DCs who is either there because they are not intelligent enough to get another job or only doing it because they can't get a 'better' job. If I had a nanny I would want one who had it as a first choice of job, because she loved it.
I also don't want a DC to be spending most of their time with someone who isn't as intelligent as the mother.

I think that where we need the change is for male and female to have a job that allows them a life outside work. The answer isn't to throw money at it. We had this problem with the local Scout group. Scouts are not about money-they are about community. Getting parents to help fund raise and take part in a rota was like drawing teeth. Eventually they were given a vote-to keep subs down and help or pay more and give up fund raising. You don't need a guess to find the result in an affluent area. It was so sad, firstly for those who haven't much money and secondly for not keeping a high profile in the community. I would have never given them a choice, but kept arm twisting for their time. I don't care if the parent is head of BP they can still manage to put up some stalls on a Saturday morning for a fete and get involved in the life of their DC.

Children are time consuming-you don't have to have them. Many people here make them sound like an inconvenience that come way down the list instead of the most important part of your life.

I am not not bashing working parents-I am one. If you are a woman who doesn't love the home part, then get your DH to do 50%. But I can fully see why women don't want to be on the board of anything-it takes over your life-my surprise is that anyone wants to do it-if they have a home life.

no, but you effectively said that children with nannies don't see their parents enough.

No I didn't!

^ this was to Bonsoir obv.

I think that where we need the change is for male and female to have a job that allows them a life outside work. totally agree exotic.

argh cross posted - too slow again!

ok then, you didn't!

I didn't mean to say that having a nanny solves ALL the problems. If I chose to work part time, it's because I think spending time with your own children when they're little is extremely important. I could work full time and afford just about to get a nanny/nursery, but also prefer not to because having your parents around when you're a child is very important for their development.

Affording childcare only solves the problem of inequality at work.

The point of my OP is equality inside the house. From what I see, even those mothers working full time and earning the same or sometimes more than their partners, are still usually the ones organising MOST of the domestic, social stuff that comes with kids. They're the ones dealing with the nanny, parties, social events, meals, school holidays, sickness etc etc. Even though, I admire them for their full time presence in the world of work, I wouldn't want to live like that.

That's why I think that the real meaningful move now has to be for men and women to work part time and share childcare and housework responsibilities 50/50. I know it sounds extremely utopian now, but I hope that one day that will be the case.

A lot of ideas that started as a utopian dream became reality, e.g. women getting a university education, women entering the work force at the same level as men. Men more involved in the world of family, children and domestic work is, for me, the next only meaningful next step forward.

Equality does not mean sharing out all life tasks 50:50.

I feel perfectly equal to my DP. We do very different things all day in order to ensure our life as a family is as good as possible, but neither feels lesser than the other.

However, I sometimes suspect he feels somewhat superior to his many friends where both in the couple work! His home life is a hell of a lot more comfortable than theirs!