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?

Neither did I swallowedafly and am much older than most on here. We would have been horrified by such a suggestion.

Yes, that's the hurdle which is the only reason i go on about pay and good careers. You get far too many girls going into art whilst their brothers become actuaries or bankers. Or the girl wil be cabin staff and the boy fly the plane or the girkl the nurse and the boy the leading surgeon. I am very encouraged that things continue to improve but only if we realise there is a battle out there and as long as so many mumsnetters put their career second women or tolerate sexist men. women will never get on.

(I probably have a life similar to what swallowed wants actually although I try not to be too personal on what I write here)

If women can work smart not hard they do better. I cannot be that much better than many women so why do I earn the weekly minimum wage in an hour when some mumsnetters work a week for that? Because they made very unwise career choices and or put their careers second to men.

Himalaya I don't have an issue with fruitful disagreement. I just don't like the slagging off of other women's choices and of them as people in a feminist discussion. Anyway I don't think you have done that so my comments aren't directed at you personally. I agree with you that we need to examine the system and challenge it so it works out better for everybody.

You are really out of date! I really don 't think that young people are so hidebound. My friend's son is a nurse, my DS had plenty of friends at university who were female and going to be doctors. Why should it be better to be a doctor if you want to be a nurse on the caring side? My DS is doing an art based course, my nephew is at Art college. Is this not as good as science? Another friend's DS was an actuary and bored, he is now a Mathis teacher and happier. When I fly I have always had male cabin staff and I have had a female pilot. As a mother of DSs it is boys prospects that worry me, girls are taking over in all areas.

There seems to be a lot of snobbery over jobs with some being put on a pedestal as desirable as if we should all want to do them.

i think tbf it's the acknowledgement of pay potential rather than inherent status of jobs that is being seen here ef.

even as a teacher the reality for me was that i could have managed to pay my mortgage and childcare even if i'd gone down to a 0.6 (3days a week with 40% pay cut) post. even by aiming for teacher rather than teaching assistant therefore there are more choices post children. a teaching assistant could not afford childcare out of their salary therefore would have to quit and go on benefits if single or rely on partner if not. whereas i as a teacher and single could go over to part time and afford to get by and use childcare.

the lower paid your job the less options for childcare, working less hours etc there is.

what i'm retraining as will ideally allow even less hours to cover my overheads (which i'm quite happy to keep low).

it's not the status but the earning potential and the choices or lack thereof that come with that.

Some get more pay but I can't see why someone wants a totally miserable life as a banker when they really want be a potter. Go for the dream. Life is too short to be an actuary unless you enjoy it.

I agree that the pay is important, I would prefer to be a teaching assistant but I didn't do it because they earn too little, supply teaching brought in far more for less hours.

hmm i'd go with the job that made a load of money quickly so i could buy my potters wheel and studio space and the money for the courses, materials, equipment and time needed to give being a potter a go.

yes they earn too little - and who are those jobs aimed at ef?

Those who want a work life balance. Lots of teachers are teaching assistants because you get to work with the DCs without all the planning,preparation,marking,meetings etc that go with the job. I loved the classroom and the DC - just not all the overload of record keeping etc. Now I just pop in and help as a volunteer-for free.

Nah, they're aimed at women working for pin-money while their male other halves do the real earning. Sucks, IMO

I picked up a leaflet on a textile trail today where you can visit different workshops where people, mainly women, have studios producing weaving , silk scarves, yarns etc. I would say that these are successful women, using their artistic talents to produce things of beauty that give them satisfaction and the life they want. Xenia would say, I think, 'why are you aiming low-why aren't you a doctor or actuary?' As if they are second class.

I don't actually know if some of the thinking on this thread is delusional or not. Houses cost money. Children cost money. Transport costs money. Holidays cost money. School fees cost money. Holiday homes and islands cost money.

It's fair to say that the last three items are luxuries rather than necessities. No-one ever paid, NO-ONE EVER PAID, for the first three solely out of a teaching assistant's salary. It is not possible. This is where myth-making comes in. Pin-money jobs for little women. Gah! It's so wrong. Don't buy into it.

The ones that I know could teach. Their DCs are older they are free to work full time, they don't have to worry about child care. They just love working with DCs but don't want the job as it is today. They don't need the money - they just enjoy it. I am not the only ex teacher who volunteers for free.

Yes but, with respect, your lifestyle is either sustained by marriage or inheritance. It is not sustained by you. Until women have economic power, they cannot hope to have equality in the domestic sphere.

Of course they don't pay for it out of a TAs money. They are a team with DH. Do you want schools to operate without TAs? They make a huge difference and there is no money to pay a living wage. A s a supply teacher I can tell you that having a TA made a world of difference.

Or benefits, I should say. I have excluded the possibility of a previously high-earning job on the basis that you said you were a teacher.

Your DC would really suffer without TAs - they are vital. There will never be money to pay them much, The only option is to abolish the role.

Um, okay. So you're economically reliant on a man. It is possible to be a team with your DH without being economically reliant upon him, y'know.

I'll betcha that homes that have equality in the domestic sphere also have equality financially. That's how it works.

I'm sure TAs must benefit some people, most notably the state for not providing small class sizes with appropriate numbers of teaching staff, it has no direct relevance to me.

We do go around in circles. If I had died DH would have had to give up his job- I was vital to it. It was equally my money. I t went straight into the joint account.

Fine. I see that you need to think that. But I also see that UNLESS WOMEN HAVE ECONOMIC EQUALITY THERE WILL BE NO EQUALITY IN THE DOMESTIC SPHERE. Unless of course capitalism falls etc. Which I doubt that it will.

It has huge relevance to you , Hopefullyrecovering- a teacher can't cope with statemented DC and a class-especially if it is for behaviour. An autistic DC would have huge impact on your DC without help. How can they learn if a DC decides to scream for an hour?