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?

Thre has always been that difference between feminists. In essence though we and most men too will hold the same views - that we want equality under the law between men and women (and for me that is as much about equality for men too and so I lobby for things like fathers' rights on divorce) and fairness at home.

I certainly think in-fighting can be pretty pointless. One person might want to form an ideal which is in essence communist really with lots of people all earning the same and women and men with lots of free time. (I don't think that works) and another might simply want more women in positions of power and indeed like our current structures save that too few women lead - which is my position.

There still remains the bottom line that far too many women clean and serve and their husbands earn and thus women get nowhere. If instead we think being at home and earning nothign is some kind of desirable nirvana for women then surely people would think the more housewives the better and may be there is a strand of feminist who does, more fool her.

"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"

Get out of the kitchen. Get into the board room. Stop inequality at home. Throw the apron to the husband or tell him what time he needs to collect from nursery every day. Take power. Don't be a domestic drudge and martyr. Don't believe the peddled myth that children need a parent at home and that housewives benefit children.

I had no idea feminists were in such disarray.

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.

It is a nonpolitical viewpoint. It is a viewpoint that lacks analysis and critical thinking. It can be said insistently over and over again but it will still be a simplistic and individualistic opinion.

Sure some women buck the trend. As individuals. Feminism isn't about individuals though it is about groups and society, patterns and power structures.

Note I said that I think radical feminism is important - not that I think it is real feminism. I rarely see nonradicals arguing for the advancement of ALL women however - happy to be proved wrong though. Radical feminism seeks to liberate all women - not just ones for whom the current system works out not too badly as long as they make certain deals and bolster paradigms and power structures.

I haven't said to Xenia that she is not a feminist - I have pointed out that some of her opinions are patriarchal and misogynistic. I also happen to think that her highly individualistic approach is flawed and a very weak strategy.

It is also a strategy that is dependent on patriarchal good favour and one that is dependant on the exploitation of other women.

AKA I'm alright jackism.

I would like more women doing better at work. Now that might mean the person running the local Tesco rather than sitting at the tills is female as much as I would like 50%+ of the Tesco board and indeed shareholders to be female. So I don't think I want power only for a few women. I would also like the nurse and taxi driver couple to ensure that at home he does as much of the domestic and childcare work as she does where their working hours are the same.

I don't think feminists are in disarray at all. They all want the same thing - equality under the law and fairness at home. There may well be some who want the state to be over thrown and some kind of happy clappy communism imposed but that's not the essence of it. The essence is about all those topics we've been reading in todays' Sunday papers like the number of girls in the UK subjected to FMG, against the last to drive if female in Saudi and all the rest.

Objecting to the exploitation and corruption of patriarchal capitalism does not make one a communist. PMSL.

i don't think xenia is calling you a communist bc and i don't think bc was telling xenia she wasn't a feminist. no matter how much anyone tries to shit stir

I don't think it is a 'peddled myth' that children benefit from having a parent at home. There have been numerous studies to back that point up, and frankly it makes sense that no paid employee will have as much of a vested interest in seeing that the child is content and educated as that child's parent. The myth would seem to be that it is the mother who should be the one to stay at home. There is no biological imperative that makes a woman better at chasing a paint covered toddler than a man. There is only societal pressure for the undervalued sex to do the undervalued work. That is what should be challenged, the worthiness of making the decision to stay at home, respect and value attached to that work and more than that, respect afforded to those who make the decision and those that don't, based upon their own need, not other people's expectations of them.

I agree totally with Beachcomer and SAF. When feminism is put on the table, it seems that it's impossible to reach a unanimous consensus from all the various fronts: SAHP, WOHP, part timer etc.

The most difficult task is to extricate ourselves from our own little worlds and look at society as a whole. And not just society, the world as well. What does it mean being born a woman? What kind of life I'm going to have just because of that?

I do believe that fierce capitalism has a lot to do with a social and economic structure that pushes the individual to certain corners of reality. In the case of women, we have to watch out not to be pushed too much in the direction of the private arena, and fight to be more visible and influential in the public arena too.

I think feminism has gone through different faces and the struggle is still not over. (To the amazement of many women!).

We had to fight hard to get an education: we got it.

We had to fight hard to vote: we got it

We had to fight hard to get into the professions and positions of power: we got a long way but still have a long way to go. There are obstacles here that have to do with a new phase of feminism:

Now the real fight for feminism is to get equality inside the house: we need to get men from all social strata to participate equality in domestic and childcare related tasks. And this last point needs a deep re-evaluation of our political and economic structures. If not a revolution, we DO need deep reform.

Most women in this thread seem to agree on one point: the personal is political. There wouldn?t be a better political statement than having David Cameron and Nick Clegg doing a job share. Each working three days a week each, and the rest doing childcare and all the extra work it entails. The day I see that sort of political statement would be the day that I can sleep in peace. The world is getting a better place for women.

Even better is Cherie Booth maintaining her career, Nick Clegg's wife earning £500k a year +, Mrs Thatcher when in charge of the nation, never mind male politicians working full time.

My basic point is that childcaer and housework is just plain boring and no one with half a brain wants to do a lot of it. Every cultures and all sexes at all times in allpoinst in history outsources it to slaves, spouses and all kinds of people. That is because the task is very very dully done on a continuous basis. Therefore the idea that if we force men who have better talents and women for that matter into it for political reasons just seems weird to me.

What I can agree with above is that fairness at home is important. If yo both work full time no woman in her right mind ends up doing more than the man at home and we never have. I certainly didbn't tolerate it in the arly 80s. So we need to stop weaker women marrying sexist men or tolerating sexism at home.

Obviously if you become a housewife you just perpetuate the unfairness at home and thus a key answer to these issues is ensure women work full time.

Your DH did more than you, and then he ran away.

Xenia can you not see that your way is not the only way? That not all women (or indeed men) seek fulfilment in the workplace as you have done, and many actively want to be at home with their children, at least while they are Pre-school age and that they seek their fulfilment in shaping the mind of the small people they have created and ensuring they afford them the best possible opportunities, in experiences as well as material objects?

I fail to see how 'all women must work full time' is any better than 'all women must stay at home'. Yes it may cause an address of the power imbalance in the workforce, but it wouldn't do anything to help the imbalance in the home as the jobs that SAHPs do still have to be done by someone and that will likely as not be a woman, thus further devaluing the worth of that work and reinforcing the idea that housework is women's work, so the picking up at the end of the day should fall to the wife.

Surely the answer lies in making the choice available to women? A real choice, not 'it makes sense for me to stay at home because he earns more' when 'he' only earns more because of a wage imbalance, or 'his job isn't flexible enough to allow him to do childcare' when the issue should be reducing the expectation on people to work 100 hour weeks at anti-social times just to get ahead in their field.

"SAHPs do still have to be done by someone and that will likely as not be a woman, thus further devaluing the worth of that work and reinforcing the idea that housework is women's work, so the picking up at the end of the day should fall to the wife."

The housework has to be done by someone, and if both work it should be shared easily. I find it mindboggling that equal sharing of housework supports the idea that it;s woman's work?

Pious reducing the expectation on people to work 100 hour weeks at anti-social times just to get ahead in their field

how do i explain to my clients they need to reduce their expectations of me? wont they just go to another provider?

also - not every has a partner who cannot help out more around the house, because they are running BP etc.

why isnt the solution men doing more housework etc.? seems much more realistic and easier to achieve then some fantasy 'feminist' world where everyone works 3 days a week.

also i dont want to work 3 days per week! i enjoy my job.

"why isnt the solution men doing more housework etc.? seems much more realistic and easier to achieve then some fantasy 'feminist' world where everyone works 3 days a week.

also i dont want to work 3 days per week! i enjoy my job.!"

QFT

Xenia, when I talk about childcare and housework, I talk about your own. Not other people's. That's why I think it's important. Especially the former. Men and women (whether a teaching assistant or the president of BP) should look after their own children, and I highlight once again, especially in the case of infants and small children. As children grow up, their personalities are formed and shaped, and who looks after them becomes probably less important. Also, I don?t think breastfeeding is the passport to being a good parent. Being a parent is being there, day in day out, in the small and boring moments, but also in the fun ones.

I agree that childcare is boring sometimes, but there are many jobs in life that are boring, but they need to be done by us anyway. Who wipes your own bum? Or do you get a servant to do so because you might get dirty?

Also, you said you own an island in Panama? Are you talking metaphorically or is this some sort of "tax haven" where all fierce capitalists that you admire avoid tax in the UK so they don't have to contribute to society? So there?s never money for subsidised childcare but there is lots of money for war and potential business opportunities in Iraq and the Middle East.

The kind of fierce capitalists whose philosophy is "private gain" and "social loss", as the taxpayer has to bail them out when they muck up. Or subsidise their businesses so they can pay a pittance to their employees and the taxpayer has to make up for their income by paying the all sorts of tax credits and income support.

I honestly hope you're not one of those. You keep talking about how you make millions but it?s not clear so far how.

You must be relatively new to MN, Marga. Xenia is a solicitor who runs her own practice. The island is real, but just a holiday home, I understand. She is a zealot on the issue of gender equality and i admire her for her forthright views and for taking on a man's world and doing well in it.

I really should sit on my hands and keep out of it but well said Piousprat. I disagree entirely with Xenia I have a full brain and I can't think of anything being more interesting than bringing up your own child. Of course some bits are boring,they are in any job. Personally I would find everything about a career in the law deadly boring. I would hate to be a child of the Blairs or the Cleggs. O f course some people want to excel in careers - and why not? However I fail to see why anto e has DCs if they are so bored by them.
In Xenia's world we wouldn't have anyone to work with DCs because it is only for the brain dead!

Sorry-don't know what happened. It meant to say -Why have DCs if they are so boring? You don't have to.

I am trying to imagine Cherie Blair as my mother-and failing!! A terrible prospect.

I try not to say what I do so I'd rather people didn't say. I'm not sure I'd said where the island was, deliberately. I have no money. My ex husband has it all which is right and proper in a fair society that high earning women pay out to men on divorce.

"You keep talking about how you make millions". That is certainly not true. I don't think I've ever anywhere said what I earn.

What is important though is that women realise women can earn a lot of money and have large happy families and even buy islands. Far too many women have very very low expectations and then give up all work and just stay at home.

I agree that parents should spend time with their chidlren. Working fathers and mothers bring up their chidlren. All those I've worked with try very hard to spend time with them. I like about 3 hours a day with small ones not counting night time breast feeding and more at weekends. I think that's a lovely balance.

We need a lot more women saying I actualyl love my job and I want to do it 5 days a week and I do not want to be in part time work at home. Far too many articles are all about women who don't want to work much at all and hate it all. That's such a shame. Plenty of men and women do like their work and their families and a balanced life involves both.

exoticfruits. We have got it a bit wrong about her. She loves her DCs, but didnt do much childcare between the times of 8am and 6pm when they were younger.It helped that her DH was a teacher.
What she is blessed with is great health, looks quite pretty and works on her books etc till the early hours and beyond. In short, she is a fairly exceptional woman.
What she gets wrong however, and is unable to understand, despite her huge IQ is that she is unique.That is why she is at the top of her field.And yes, I do know what field.I could go on and on and on.

"Sorry-don't know what happened. It meant to say -Why have DCs if they are so boring? You don't have to."

If I'm with my children 24/7 for an extended period of time longer than a family holiday we begin to drive each other to distraction - the 2-3 hours a day we spend together during the week (not counting night time breastfeeding and cosleeping) and whole days at weekends are much more enjoyable and relaxing and fun for everyone involved - i do have a relative recent comparison, as I've just returned from maternity leave, and both parents working makes us all in all a happier family.

I love my children, I wouldn't want to be without them. But I couldn't spend all day every day just looking after them and the house without going insane. Does that mean I shouldn't have them?