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 love them, you hate what they do if appropriate. Trust has got to be earned. In my book, that takes a long time. And FWIW, one of my daughters works in a childcare setting.
A commercial childcare setting can be more dangerousthan school. The children on the whole are younger and some can barely speak.

nice bit of scaremongering juxtaposed with a happy clappy say-nothing statement. love is a verb in my book - what you DO with and to someone who is evil and dangerous is not what you do with and to someone you love. love isn't an airy fairy concept to bandy about and claim to have for pedophile even as you demand the police lock him up and never let him live in your back yard.

anyway. not sure of the relevance to the thread.

Well, at least the dangerous childcare scaremongering is a creative new song compared to the tired "precious moments" chorus.

If anything, it's just designed to make working parents feel as if they're worse parents.

Love, my arse. I sincerely don't love what she says.

both sides are as bad as each other (of those sahms and wohms who argue about it). most women don't feel the need imo and don't need to judge the 'other' to feel ok about their own lives. most can see pros and cons on both sides of the fence and most do a bit of both anyway at one time or another.

it's an argument that a judgmental few on either side make seem a lot bigger than it is by being prolific on the subject and repeating themselves loudly everytime anything even vaguely related comes up.

But on one hand I think we can all say clearly that it is a problem that more men than women are in higher paying jobs and at the top of organisations, and in influential roles in public life as MPs, Editors, CEOs etc.,, and that more women are on low wages and in support positions.

Pointing out that that is a problem doesn't mean putting down people on low incomes and doing support roles. But we don't pretend they are the same. We don't say "It isn't a problem that CEOs are predominantly men, because teaching assistants are predominantly women so that evens things out."

But when we look at the same men and women at home it seems like we can't make the same value judgement without getting into WOHMvs SAHM wars and red herrings about childcare.

If schools are full of female teachers and TAs and male heads of dept and head teachers (and the same in media, medicine, politics etc...) and we see this as a problem, then we can't say it is not a problem that in so many couples the woman gives up work/works in a flexi position they are overqualified for. The two are not unrelated!

I don't think the answer is 2 week maternity leave a-la-Xenia, but I don't think we can just say it is fine to have such gendered expectations about parenthood and expect equality at work. It's not possible.

well of course you can't compare those situations because choosing to stay out of paid employment for a few years to look after your children is not the same as only being able to get a low paid, unskilled job and many don't see it as going lower on a food chain but as being a parent and wanting to give some years of their life to parenting as the main focus rather than paid work. they see it as a positive thing.

some see child raising, caring for relatives etc as low status work therefore think women should get away from it, others see the problem lying with the way it is perceived and think the answer is for the status to be raised and it be seen as a valid life choice at points in one life as a man or a woman and believe you'd see a move even number of men and women choosing to do these things.

so if kids are in the playground and it is dictated corner x is where the smelly kids are you can choose to run away from x as far as you can so you're not smelly or you can aim to dispel the myth about corner x so that no one thinks it is belittling to go there and everyone will play where they want to play.

though i guess if you unquestionably believe that parenting, caring etc are inherently low value that would be an obstacle to seeing it from the latter view.

Himalaya gets to the core of it. We will never have as many women in positions of power as men whilst so many women give up work or go part time. The personal is political. A private decision to become a housewife damages other women and contributes to the problem. Seek to outearn your husband. Perhaps that's all we need as the key to most of these issues.

it isn't all about the money though. some of us seek a more fundamental change than that that would improve life for everyone, not just the rich. if someone is not massively motivated by money and status they can't force their life into all out pursual of it just to please other women. and not all women can earn a lot or even enough.

the sphere of work was designed by and for men right? economically focussed feminism has focussed on getting women into that sphere and trying to get them equal pay, chances of promotion etc within in that sphere. the sphere itself has remained unchanged however leaving it incompatible or difficult to balance with other areas of life that are important to most women. likewise it hasn't done enough to raise the status of those other areas of life and get men to take an equal role in those areas or gotten the state to take up their share of those areas (re: decent, affordable childcare for all).

that is why i am a radical feminist - because tweaking with one area whilst leaving loads unchanged doesn't work imo. the access to the world of work needs to come with changes to the world of work, changes to societal attitudes to and provision of childcare, changes to male entitlement and attitudes towards work in the domestic sphere and so forth. otherwise it only opens really to those who can (ability, class and economic situation of family of origin therefore access to education etc), and want through the kind of hours and dedication it requires, earn way above the national average and can therefore afford good quality flexible childcare and to outsource further domestic work.

that of course creates a two tiered system - you just create more classes and divisions between women. some looking at what it takes will be disinterested and see the needs of their children and their desire to do the work of the domestic sphere in competition with the demands of work. in the system we have they do to some degree compete with each other hence the endless rhetoric of the holy grail of work/life balance in our culture.

we haven't changed that clash between public and private sphere and paid and domestic labour. so of course women will find themselves at either end of that. however most find themselves in the middle trying to juggle both spheres with varying degrees of success (closely related to how much money they have - easier with lots of money, hard with little because the less money you have the more work there is still to do yourself and the less quality and flexibility of childcare you can afford).

sorry this is an epically long post. i know no one will listen but it is structural change we need - not just women's choices. those choices are non choices for the vast majority of women. there are very few who get to do exactly as they please be that sahm (partner earning enough to make it possible) or wohm earning enough to make it easy due to affording good quality childcare and domestic support.

the system worked by women being free labour in the home. that 'labour' still has to be done by someone and that's what has never really been addressed. the state hasn't stepped up with childcare (instead rolling out benefits to try and fill the gap and avoid taking on that societal cost to people working full time) and men in general haven't stepped up to doing their share of that work or adjusting their own working patterns to the new situation. so we have a system that was designed for sahm/wohd. the system needs to change to the changed realities of lives.

SAF - no I don't believe that parenting, caring etc.. is inherently low value, but I also don't see why it should be disproportionately done by women, and it should disproportionately harm their careers. Which it does now.

In the current situation 'choosing to stay out of paid employment for a few years' rarely just means that, it means women going back into a lower paid job, for which they are over qualified and which has lower prospects for advancement.

For example all the trained teachers and other graduates working as classroom assistants. For example the fact that while there are a fairly equal number of science graduates of both sexes, something like 80% of patents are filed by men.

Is it a problem that so few women are getting patents, and headships, board positions, etc... I think it is. And the way parenthood is organised is a large part of this.

But you seem to be saying it isn't, because all we have to do is say that being a SAHM is 'just as good' as being a CEO, just as good as getting a patent, just as good as achieving your full potential in your profession and the problem disappears.

(even as simple as the school holidays - obviously the school year is based on the old fashioned model and now that there is someone at home what have they done to change it? a few overpriced summer playschemes with limited places and out of reach of most incomes. the school day ending at 3.20pm is another obvious assumption that women are at home. women not being at home anymore has resulted in what change to that? a few after school club places, usually not enough to go round, relatively expensive and at my sons school requiring a child to be in a mobile classroom till 6pm with only some biscuits and water to eat)

now that there is not someone at home. sorry.

and before the people shouldn't have kids unless they can afford them stuff comes out - people have always had children - it's what people do, any species does. a society designed in such a way that loads of people wouldn't be able to reproduce would be a failed society - society is supposed to make life work better not destroy it.

"But you seem to be saying it isn't, because all we have to do is say that being a SAHM is 'just as good' as being a CEO, just as good as getting a patent, just as good as achieving your full potential in your profession and the problem disappears."

Himalaya - you're hitting the nail on the head there. All this talk about how SAHM-ing should be valued more actually is a tool to keep women in their place.
It seems to be somehow accepted that it is woman's work to stay at home, and the reasoning is spurious. It's not about breastfeeding, as plenty of SAHMers don't breastfeed, and plenty of breastfeeders WOHM, it's just about continuing the status quo.

SAF -

I don't disagree with you on many points.

But I think there is a fundamental incompatibility between the approach that says we must value domestic responsibilities just as much as public life and the one that says that we need to change the system so that taking a fair share of domestic responsibility (i.e. half) should not prevent you succeeding in public life.

I agree it is a constrained choice for most people. But I still think it should be examined. The whole line that some people are 'not material' is a cop-out. For most people it is a choice driven by financial considerations. i.e. The family is better off financially in the short-term if the dad works full time and the mum takes all the domestic responsibility.

In other words the priorities people take (and which society endorses) are that short term financial considerations, the dad's career and the ease of family life all take priority over whether the woman gets to maintain her career in the long term. Even if she goes to work, he gets the the patents, the promotions, the pay-rises (pp+p)

You can paper over that and say that looking after children is just as important as patents, promotions and payrises (which it is in one way, I do get that). But actually if you look at the way the decisions are made within families the priorities are that pp+p are seen as more important to men than ease of family life ('his job doesn't allow flexibility') and ease of family life is seen as more important for women than pp+p ('it just made more sense for me to go PT, quit etc...')

". i know no one will listen but it is structural change we need - not just women's choices. those choices are non choices for the vast majority of women. there are very few who get to do exactly as they please be that sahm (partner earning enough to make it possible) or wohm earning enough to make it easy due to affording good quality childcare and domestic support."

The first thing is to stop thinking about it as "woman's choice", but "family's choice" - in a couple with two relatively low earning partners on a similar level, why should it still automatically fall to the woman to give up work? Why is it the woman's salary which is "eaten up by childcare", not the man's? Why should it be thought about as difficult for the woman to afford continuing to work, not the man?

And yes, I think access to childcare and help with paying for it must be improved, and that not only at the lowest end of the earning spectrum, to stop anomalies in which the joint income is so high that you don't get any help, but the childcare costs reduce it by so much that you're worse off than if one of the parents didn't work, because you can't claim anything.

well yes ww that is what this thread was about - making a family 'choice' that works for all rather than it being all on the woman. i agree it should be so but it hasn't become so has it? attitudes of men, working practices of men and of the whole sphere of work haven't changed towards that model.

i think it needs to be bigger too as in a societal choice. we can have childcare and work are just as important as each other if the whole society believes that and therefore changes itself to accommodate those values. it doesn't work where it is only women who are seeing that and therefore trying to accommodate the value in their lives as individuals. with individuals it is one person giving up everything or accommodating everything. as a society we can come up with better solutions to that. re: free childcare, a school year and activities outwith it that fit with the world of work and changes to the world of work too.

it can't all fall to individuals or couples to overcome the fucked up system that works against them. and bear in mind not everyone is even in couples - you have to consider single parents here too.

This thread highlights exactly why radical feminism is important. I agree with what sAf says.

The answer to the problem is revolution. We need to revolutionise society (which was set up by men for men) to a society that is set up by humans for humans.

Either that or women should go on strike and stop having children. Except we won't and that is where patriarchal society as got us by the proverbials.

The very foundations of male dominated society are based on oppressing women because we have wombs and we carry children. And therein lies women's power - if we would just harness it instead of accepting patriarchy's denigration of it. Expecting women to behave like men who just happen to pop out babies, is patriarchal to the extreme, and it won't advance all women - just a few privileged ones. And that isn't feminism - feminism is for ALL women not just ones who have privilege under the current oppressive set up.

the system worked by women being free labour in the home. that 'labour' still has to be done by someone and that's what has never really been addressed.

Precisely sAf - patriarchal capitalism is a flawed economic model. It only works when you exploit half the workforce (actually a lot more than half because you have to exploit foreign workforces too).

And another reason patriarchal capitalism is flawed is because it is dependent on the heteronormative nuclear family and the gender binary - which is why it is so resistant to feminism.

I remember (just about old enough) the 1970s arguments on the same lines. I have always been a capitalist feminist. I think we are here because our ancestors over 2 million years fought tooth and claw and the fittest survived. So I am never going to agree with those who want to change the structure of how they are. If they do want that plenty of them have set up alternative ways of living and working. it's not that hard. I own my island in Panama. People go to that and other cheaper countries and ilve on very little and can live a life where they do very little except lotus eat (if male) and 24/7 childcare and housework if female (I gest because I assume they woudl hopefully choose a non sexist man if they choose to be with men at all which of course is not always what women wan) or hire a local to do so for a pittance if they can square that with their political views.

Anyone can clean and provide child care. It is dull and low grade and clever women don't want to do it nor men. I don't see why feminism has to force me to change my views that sitting for 10 hours a day holding a baby or scrubbing a floor is some kind of interesting higher calling. It's like calling black white. If that's feminism it's a load of rubbish.

Part of the solution is in our own hands

There is total equality in my home. I have made sure it is so. I am bringing up my son and daughter equally.

If we can't make things better for ourselves, let's at least make sure it's better for the next generation

Xenia do you actually know anything about feminism or is all your knowledge just about strawfeminism?

Anyway the system will be forced to change soon enough - patriarchal capitalism/consumerism is unsustainable. It exploits too many and too much for the benefit of too few.

yep - the pyramid is way too top heavy now - it can't go on without total collapse or radical change imo.

I don't think the system is going to change. It's been going an awful long time. If anything could have made it change, it was the credit crunch. But it hasn't forced a change and won't now force a change.

So, in the absence of a change of system, how can we as individuals make a difference? That's the question we should be asking ourselves IMO

beachcomber - is it the old "only radfems are real feminists" chestnut again? That's boring - You may not agree with Xenia's ideas, but her insistence that there's nothing which should hold a woman back from being as successful as a man whilst still having a family is not a non-feminist viewpoint.

And it's one I find more palatable than the idea that until there's some revolution we will just have to see that it's the patriarchy that holds women back, and any woman who breaks out of that just behaves like a man and that's a bad thing.

I don't agree with all that Xenia says, and her world is vastly different to mine - but I think saying that she's not a feminist, just because she's not at your end of the spectrum is stupid.