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?

i haven't read it but yes tbom. all that juggling, the knowing when birthdays are, when appointments need to be made, what day the school play is on, whether school shoes are getting too small and need replacing etc. the stuff that has to be done/known/thought and planned about or chaos would ensue. many women find even with partners who do a lot that side of things seems to fall to them.

struggling to see what purpose at all the word paradigm serves in that 'sentence' scottishmummy perhaps you pick a word of the day to drop randomly into your posts out of context. makes a change from the weird misuses of the concept of hegemony.

cant believe people buy and read that socialscienetastic chuff
talk about making self feel hard done to, when just doing what we all do
we all think about stuff but dont categorise it or make martyrs from it as being womens work

hehe paradigm,well she called it one. and ive read and heard it referred as
use your pal google..

saf yup, that's my life, was thinking about school shoes in the shower this morning.

Will dig out the book.

sm, isn't the point that all women do that, but very few men do, even when the woman is working FT? Just because its always been like that doesn't mean it should be or needs to be.

my point is men and women both do this stuff
its making a deal out of everyday tasks we all think about, as it its is only laboured or undertaken by women
big ole discussion about paradigms and wifework here

I think that is a very fair point.
Of the SAHDs I know, they have a very different approach to the children and home than most SAHMs I know. They seem to dilute the chores and responsibilities to a minimum. Most include a fair bit of free lance work into the bargain.
When I'm away DH doesn't worry about half the minutae that I do. He would find it ridiculous. If he were at home full time, he still wouldn't worry about it. It's not the case that he simply relies on me to do it. He thinks neither of us should bother frankly.

I know it often goes against feminist theory but are men and women just hard wired differently?

sm yes, I remember that thread now.

I'm not attempting to make a big deal out of it, just pointing out that even in the most outwardly appearing "equal" households (eg myself and DH each had a year at home, one after each other, caring for DD when she was little, which is far from the cultural norm), really even balance of tasks is actually v hard to achieve. I doubt DH does it deliberately, but he just takes it for granted that I will remember all this stuff. Leaving him free to think about more fun stuff that is about him alone rather than the family as a whole.

I agree with SAF about 'force of character' to be a good teacher or TA.

I don't think it is as simple as adding a couple of pounds an hour, or a bit of cheap training onto someone's job and thinking it will make them excel.

It is more that people with drive and force of character and who are results driven don't usually go into jobs that have such a short pay scale, no recognition, not much room for advancement etc...(other than the occasional sainted type), so as you say the quality is variable, the good ones often leave and the naice primary schools find it much easier to attract good TAs than the rough secondaries that really need them.

Unless you recognise and manage a job professionally it is impossible to get consistent good performance. My impression is that a lot of schools have a mix of TAs - some TAs who are middle class graduates doing it for pin money and interest, some who are people trying out the teaching profession, and some who are women with low levels of qualification who really need the money.

It is very unusual for a job to be like this, particularly if the performance of it matters. Normally if you want people to do a job well at the right price you don't employ such a wide range of people, because you can't manage them. Usually you employ people with a tight range of characteristics that you think are what it takes to excel in that job, and you rate them and reward them and promote them according to how well they do. But you just can't do that if you employ all comers who are willing to work for low rates.

Exotic - Underpaying people for skilled work because they are women might look like saving money, but is a false economy.

For example say you find that graduate TAs do a better job. You can't give preference to graduates in employment if you haven't put that in the Person Specification, and you can't put graduate in the Person Specification for a TA because then you would have to pay them graduate wages.

Or say you want to recognise the TAs who are passionate,inspiring and confident - and who are worth much more than they get paid and take on more responsibility than their job description will ever include. Well you can, but it starts to look like favouritism (and risks being perceived as classism and racism in many settings), and is quite demoralising to the TAs who are just doing the job to the best of their abilities and according to their job description.

This is just not the way to manage people.

And to muddle through this way is just to say that kids (especially poor kids, kids with SNs) don't really matter, and women's work doesn't really matter

I definitely do the "wifework" - though not the housework. We both work ft, and have a cleaner. Division of physical labour in the house is pretty equal. But DH travels a lot and works longer hours. My employer is quite flexible so I tend to leave work earlier and catch up in the evening if necessary. So a lot more childcare falls to me, plus all the organisational stuff that goes with being a parent....parties, clothes, activities, school forms, homework checking etc. I am the one with a diary and a list and DH just gets given instructions.

This actually suits me as I am a bit of a control freak - I like to manage the finances, know what is happening when.....however DH is under no illusions that if I dropped dead tomorrow, HE would have to make big changes to his life, or hire someone to replace me. If he died, well....nothing much would change....I would have less money I suppose...

Porto I actually have an "if I drop dead" list of things DH will need to remember to do.

I also keep meaning to write one for DD - things that I would have wanted to tell her myself, sort of mix of practical info and moral compass stuff.

I really need to make fewer lists. I might have more time for me if I didn't keep making lists.

When I wrote my OP, I guess my intention was to put men ? you can call it the ?patriarchy? ? on the spot. Probably the same as women are constantly put on the spot about their childcare choices. Only very few posters here have addressed that so far. And even myself have lost sight of it in the dabate.

I don?t like women bashing each other about their choices and getting a kick out of it either. That is what the Sun and a the Daily Mail do all the time and I honestly despise it. However, every single woman has been bashed hardly on this thread , the SATM?s, the WOHM?s, the part timers. The debate has even extended to attack low earners, high earners, TA?s, cleaners, you name it. It?s been attacked and received a good bash so far. It?s all becoming a real muddle! The irony is that the ones who needed to be criticised and questioned ? men and THEIR choices ? have got away with it fairly intact.

It?s OK to hear people bashing each other for a while, I guess that?s why we chose to remain anonymous and participate in this sort of forums. But I don?t see the point of it if we are not going to step out of it at some point and look at the bigger picture. And we need to take a very philosophical approach to life, and what it is really what makes us tick and makes us human, if we are going to do that.

My main objection to the so called ?patriarchy? and why I think we need to challenge it at some point, regardless of how lovely our husbands are and how much they ?help? around the house, or how terrible they are for not doing housework or childcare, is that its economic and social institutions are founded mainly on the idea that human beings are only ?money machines?. It completely disregards that what makes us really human is a lot of other activities, habits, expectations, that don?t have to do in many cases with making money. And we just follow that premise without even questioning it, and it?s having terrible consequences to the way we choose to live. It is trapping those who don?t make enough money, for various reasons, and women are the ones here who are affected the most. It?s affecting relationships not just between husbands and wives, or partners, and their children. It?s putting a strain on family relations, and even friendships. We live lives completely alienated from each other, because the only valid way to be is to be at work making money. The patriarchy has such a huge grip on our psyches that we don't even realise it?s strangling us all. It really has us by the balls here.

I think we need big changes in our society. If the main aim is making money, it is clear to everyone which path you need to follow. Play by the patriarchy?s rules, enjoy the capitalists? game, don?t question it, just stick faithfully to it, at the expense of anyone and everything else. If we want to spend more time with our children, family, or pursue other interests and passions as a career or not (call it art, teaching, philosophy, reading, painting, languages etc etc), you?re on a losing streak here. You are put in a very vulnerable position, an easy target for the ?money machine?. You are open to attack, humiliation on a daily basis, from the defenders of the patriarchy, whether you?re a woman or a man.

I think putting legislation in place that allows men to be more involved in childcare is essential because the ?money machine? has forgotten that raising your own children is a huge part of what makes us human, and it needs to be done by men and women equally. It is high time the patriarchy starts playing a different kind of game.

Hear hear marga excellent post.

marga - I agree too. I often say on these threads that the drive for equality always seems to = getting the top jobs/earning lots of money. But even in the glass ceiling was shattered only a relative FEW people will ever achieve this - and they are the ones who probably put work before everything else anyway...

What about happiness, personal satisfaction, spending quality time with friends and family? I see a whole different culture with my Belgian employer - they have a Work-Life balance and a Diversity policy and they actually seem to take this seriously. There is no culture of presenteeism - office is empty by 5pm. I see male colleagues taking their paternity leave (valid up til child is 12), I see them leaving to collect their dcs from school. I see women treated with respect and given equal opportunities. If my child is sick, I can work from home and no-one judges me for it. If I have to miss a meeting, someone will always ask if she is better now. I see male colleagues doing the same.

I think the importance of family is seen much more respectfully here. If there is a death in someone's family here (ie work colleague's parent/GP) - an announcement is sent with details of the funeral etc. A card is bought. This is done at a departmental level, rather than adhoc by team members etc.

This a matter of culture and attitude - not big costly initiatives. But it does show it can be done.

portofino - get him insured and you won't even have that issue

Oh - he's insured alright! . I would miss him though....

re insurance

Reminds herself to check DH's life policy tonight.

meh i reckon there'd be interesting relationship between how much he's insured for and how much you'd miss him

probably a good job i'm single or i'd be getting ideas....

how practically would this type of societical change happen? i can see ML becoming parental leave as a good change, but cannot see anything else that needs legislation.

Marga73

I think the debate has got a bit heated as it always does.

But I don't think it makes sense of it by retreating to metaphors: 'the patriarchy', "the money machine" etc... as if is is something different from the choices we make about money and time (as men and women, CEOs, TAs, cleaners etc...).

Everyone needs material welfare, friendship, family, hobbies etc... all those things matter. There should be no reason why you can't combine all of them. We should organise society so that people can.

If you pursue art (say) as a career, and people want to buy your paintings then great, and if you pursue it as a hobby that is great too, but you need something else to provide for your material welfare.

So if you give up work to spend more time on your hobby, then someone still has to pay the bills. There are three options 1) you are born wealthy 2) your family/husband supports you 3) the state does. Number 1 would be nice, but 2 or 3 put you in a vulnerable position.

...I don't think this is about the ?money machine?/ attack/humiliation from the defenders of the patriarchy etc... it is just because you can't eat paintings.

You say we should put legislation in place that allows men to be more involved in childcare because the ?money machine? has forgotten that raising your own children is a huge part of what makes us human.

What does that mean ..? How are men currently prevented by legislation from being more involved in their own childcare, and what are the specific changes in legislation you are thinking of?

I don't have all the answers but the main piece of legislation that will make a big change is paternity leave, divided between mothers and fathers. Compulsory would be ideal but I understand very hard.

Flexible working for fathers when they have small children: job shares, part time, or full time outside 9 to 5 hours, working from home etc

The raise of the minimum wage to realistically match the cost of living. No assuming that wage earners can ask for tax credits and benefits to survive. This only benefits big business.

Valuing and reflecting this value in pay, in jobs mainly done by women, such as nurses, teachers, TA's, nursery staff, cleaners.

Another key one, all big companies/business paying tax in the UK, so the money goes to society not their own pockets.

Reducing the working week to no more than 40 hours a week.

Subsidised childcare from 6 months so mums can also go to work if they want to.

There's a lot that can be done in terms of legislation. Very slowly, something can be done.

Patriarchy and money machine (capitalism) aren't metaphors. They are the respective names of the social system, and the economic system we live under. And lots of us think that both of those systems are male dominated, oppressive of women, and flawed.

The choices that people make as individuals do not change the system for people as groups. Legislation is needed in order to level the playing field in terms of how men and women are affected by the act of becoming parents. However IMO what is really needed is a huge cultural and attitudinal shift, in which women as a group stop being considered to have lower status than men as a group. How we achieve that under patriarchal capitalism whilst women remain the ones who carry and give birth to children, I don't know.

The current system penalises women because we bear children. Equally, it oppresses us because we have the power to bear children. I don't see how women can achieve meaningful equality under such a system. Individual women can, but not women as a group - a group that includes all of us, not just those for whom the current system works ok for.

Until we achieve gender equality in terms of status for all women we won't achieve equality in terms of political and financial power.

This is one of the reasons why feminists fight sexualised inequality -it is the foundation upon which all the rest is based.

And it is why we must support each other and work together and not tear strips off each other. If you want to know how fair and humane a society is, look at how it treats its most vulnerable. If you want to know how misogynistic a society is, look at how it treats the most vulnerable women.

I would like to see more flexible working/career breaks offered for ALL - not just parents. If everyone was entitled to this it would make it harder to discriminate. And yy to the subsidised childcare. I talk lots on here about the Belgian education system - wrap round cover from 7.30 - 6pm, holidays included for dcs from 2.5 yo. Usually the response is "why bother to have kids...." But off course the dc's don't GO for all those hours - it just gives working parents flexibility. There is a policy here of wanting women to work - it's just they use the carrot vs stick approach....

I live in France where wraparound care is good, subsidized and flexible. Similar hours to Belgium - it makes being a working parent so much more feasible for people.

beachcomber: when will women revel in and be overjoyed about the fact that they give birth to life. I cant think of a more beautiful, empowering act. Women literally grow and give birth to life. Im so sorry you feel oppressed by that. Im jealous of that fact...no matter how much campaigning goes on for equal parents rights and legislation such that Father and mothers are treated equally, a women will always be the one to give birth, which is amazing.

Political and financial power...pah. Im not interested in that, its boring, self seeking and a rubbish thing to for humanity to aspire to.

You misunderstand me tomwm. I don't feel oppressed by being able to carry children. I don't oppress myself.

I live in a system which has historically oppressed women in order to guarantee possession and control of the children we are biologically able to bear (women and children as chattel).