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?

Tomwn: your views are very admirable. Maybe that explains why you're the only man here.

As for giving birth, well, that value you're talking about is certainly not reflected in the way society functions at the moment, and how it treats women.

Could you point out now how we can change that in real terms?

Also here - after you have worked for a number of years - 5 I think - you are entitled to take a sabbatical. It is unpaid but your mutuelle makes a small monthly payment. Also, after 55 you are legally entitled to work reduced hours if you want to. Note - these things are more to do with NOT working, rather than working more Also, the technology these days means that for many jobs it is not necessary to stay in the office for 12 hours or more a day. You can work anywhere. We really have to look at the whole structure of work and the workplace.

And I don't think it is a good idea to put giving birth on a pedestal - after all around half of the population can do it so it isn't that amazing.

It is however physically and emotional punishing and can be extremely dangerous - it is an activity that should be treated with care and respect.

Beachcomber.

But how do distinguish between 'a huge cultural and attitudinal shift' (which I agree we need) and 'lots of people thinking and acting differently' (which I think is what that means in practice) ...which means as some point people as individuals making different choices (or being incentivised, encouraged or forced to).

I agree that women as a group need to stop being considered to have lower status than men as a group.

But that means changing what individuals think about men and women and their proper role in society. ... and that means discussing that.

In order to design legislation to level the playing field in terms of how men and women are affected by the act of becoming parents we need to decide what we mean by that. Is it be working towards and ideal where:

Option X: Men and women should, over a child's life share domestic responsibility equally .

Option E: One parent takes the bulk of the responsibility for domestic care, but is compensated, celebrated and rewarded for that role which is seen as 'equal'.

I am putting it dryly as I really don't think this is just about tearing strips off each other. The point is you that whatever legislation you propose will lean towards one way or the other, so we can't just 'call for legislation' - there are trade offs.

tom we do revel in the fact that we bring forth life.

However, that does not necessarily mean we revel in washing our DC's socks, giving up our careers and losing our pension provision. Being able to give birth, does not mean we are happy to become vulnerable.

The UK is full of women who gave up their jobs and therefore made no pension provision for themselves. They bet their lot on sharing their DH's. He then either left them or died. Both leave such women hugely vulnerable.

Of the pensioners living in poverty in the UK, women outnumber men two to one.

Being celebrated, compensated, praised, valued, rewarded is not the same as being equal.

If the DH leaves for another woman 20 years younger when you're in your 50's, you'll need an income to survive. Your memories of being loved and valued as a wife/mother are not going to pay your bills.

That's why equality is so important. That's what we should aim at, and not insurance or wills, or divorce settlements.

Wordfactory: Please remember, women leave men too (I think the divorce stat is 60% initiated by women)

People who depend on anyone else financially (or indeed emotionally) are vulnerable when that person is no longer around. This is a fact of life. I agree that this should be guarded against as best as possible.

Be careful with facts like the pensioners thing though. Of pensioners living more are female because women live longer than men!

Marga73 - Agreed, but the very fact that not a single person on here can define, very simply, what equality looks like in practical terms, means that it will always be a very nebulous and subjective thing. I agree with Himalaya on this, there will always be a trade off and just because there is a trade off does not mean its not fair. I think 'fair' and 'just' are better words than equal because without carful semantic argument and exegesis of social/feminist text it gets very misused...it is too often misconstrued as the same, which is impossible because men and women are not the same.

Call it whatever you want to call it. In the "trade offs", women always seem to lose a lot more and sacrifice a lot more in terms of personal development and career than men when a couple decides to have children. And even when women don't stop working full time and their careers stay intact, they end up doing most of the childcare/domestic work inside the house, which puts a terrible burden on them. That to me is not equality.

The meaning of equality might scape us all. Agreed. That's why it is so important that we strive to define it.

i want women to have real power in the world as well as being equal in thier relationships.

i think feeling valued is very different than being valued. feeling valued does not pay the bills, be they the electricity bill or the divorce lawyers bill. feeling valued in necessary within a relationship. but after or outside the relationship, i want women to be able to call their fair share of shots.

And another word I have for those who say "equality" is not an issue or important and why do we bother?

I should have a scheme in place where I would send you on a one way ticket flight to live in Saudi Arabia, Irak, Afghanistan and many other countries in world. So all those who don't want equality can have their dreams realised.

After 20 years, I'd bring you back to Europe for a holiday only and I'll ask you question the same: is equality important? I'd love to hear your answers then.

tom whether the man left the wife or the other way around amtters not one jot. It is the woman who ends up in the vast majority of cases with inadequate pension provision.

And as you say men tend to die younger, which leaves women even more vulnerable if they don't have their own provision! For most women it is a good bet that they will be living on only what the state provides or for a period of their lives they will be relying on only a % of their DH's pension.
This leaves women extremely vulnerable.

Equality means having the same value, the same worth.

We bother with equality because it's progressive, fair and just. But it's the value we place on our time and labour that is the unequal bit. As long as we look down on housework / childcare / taking out the rubbish / doing the gardening, there will be no equality.

Women are snapping at men because they feel humiliated to be doing work in the home. Both men and women need to stop looking down their noses at manual work and start respecting each other for the hours and effort they put in, not whether it's white collar or blue collar work, changing the lightbulbs or taking the bins out.

If they don't like doing housework that's fine, pay someone else to do it. This debate should be more about class snobbery than about gender politics.

I think we get to the nub of it on a micro level of who does what at home. Plenty of high earning women even with full time working husbands do manage not to be the manager of the home. My children's father for exampel took them to the dentist for 17 eyars. I hardly knew which dentist we used. I didn't book the dates. I didn't remind him. I did our tax returns. Couples share out jobs. For a time he knew how to work the washintg machine and I barely knew how simply because he did that task and I did not.

Perhaps what we need more than equal time off to earn nothing much after birth we need to educate girls to be more assertive inr elationships, to do role plays in the sixth form of how you handle a boy who expects you to clean or take charge, how you hand him the yellow pages to search for nannies, how you say - how will you (man) organise child care after birth etc.,.how when you set up your lives you ensure you do not end u being wholly in charge of the second shift with a male "helping" only rather than being in sole charge of particular aspects of the tasks to be done.

Manual dull domestic work is something no one wants to do. the idea we put it on a pedestal fo non earning women feel better about their lowly status is laughable and hardly feminist.

A lot of sense in your posts Portofino and I wish we were more like Belgium or France. The work culture is terrible here where it is seen as a virtue to get in early and stay late, be at the end of a phone or email at the weekend or on holiday.
We should have sensible hours for all - including those without DCs. Everyone's working day should leave them time to have a hobby, see friends, walk the dog, cook a meal from scratch, do voluntary work etc. A lot of it is time wasted. DHs boss had the right idea, if he called a meeting at 9.30am he simply walked out if people were not ready to start and then he went through the agenda like a dose of salts. I have sat through meetings that never start on time and boringly meander all around the houses.
Whoever does the housework etc it is very stressful to work long hours and it would seem that you have to be 68yrs and retired before you can have any fun! It should be possible to be Head of BP and have an allotment-if you want one.
I' m sure that we would be more productive if everyone had a work life balance. At the moment you appear to have one or the other. I'm sure that if I worked similar hours to DH and was sharing the cooking we wouldn't eat healthy meals-I can't see me doing it even 3 nights a week - it would be ready meals. There was a great article today in the Times about French people being slim because they cook from scratch and don't snack.
A great deal of time at work is wasted IMO.

Xenia you should start up a school for oppressed girls and women. Seriously though, a training programme to run at schools wouldn't be a bad idea - on how to change lightbulbs, as well as use a washing machine. A programme about how to identify manipulation and emotional abuse would also be extremely helpful.

I agree with a great deal Xenia, except that not all is dull. I love making chutney and marmalade for example. I don't like routine housework but I find a thorough spring clean very therapeutic.
I don't think you need role play, you need to live it by example. DCs never ever do as you say- they do as you do and they take it in from birth. You can role play as much as you like-if you don't do it yourself it won't work.

Sadly, on reflection you do need role play. There are terrible threads on here where women actually have to be told that they are suffering emotional abuse- they don't know it.

Actually I have come to the conclusion that I may be wrong, I am judging women by me, my mother, my grandmothers and friends. A quick trawl around MN makes you despair. There is a thread at the moment about men who won't/can't cook and it is thought normal and they are allowed to get away with it! Why are they not forced to cook - or left to starve!!! It is an essential life skill. It isn't the only pathetic thread you come across.

Himalaya what I mean by a huge cultural and attitudinal shift, is really what I said here; 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.

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

Let's take an example. Harriet Harman is a very successful woman - she has political and financial power. She is in a position to better the status and position of women as a group, and she has done exactly that. She has fought hard throughout her career for equal rights. And she has been attacked for it - and she has been attacked in a genderized manner. She has been attacked because she is a woman who is tackling the status quo in areas where it disadvantages women. I don't wish to turn this discussion political and I appreciate that not everybody supports the Labour Party - Harman as an individual, regardless of her party politics, has done a lot for women as a group and it has made her extremely unpopular.

Another example, the journalist Bidisha. She writes incisively and cleverly, she is a great critic and a very smart woman. She has achieved success but she has recently written a piece about how much it hurts when you hit the glass ceiling. She writes about how unfair it is to be the 'token woman' on a panel time and time again. She writes about how unrepresentative the media is of woman and population diversity in general. She writes about how she goes to events and there will be men speaking on subjects that she knows fine well there are women who have more experience or knowledge of.

And then we have people like Julie Bindel and Melissa Farley who speak out against prostitution and trafficking - they too are attacked and marginalised for criticizing the systematic oppression of women.

This is where we need a shift - we (society) need to listen to these women and women like them and make a conscious effort to make things fairer for all women. But that doesn't seem to be how sexual politics work - every gain made by women has been made after a fight, with male dominated society resisting and resisting hard. Because in order to redress the balance and for women to be considered of equal status to men - men must relinquish some privilege and status. Actually they first have to recognise that they have that privilege and status and then they have to be willing to give some of it up.

I think we need a few big changes to set on us the route to equality. We need an overhaul of how society reconciles having children with its chosen economic system - capitalism. We need to examine the nuclear family and the gender binary within it (wifework). And something really important; we need to change laws on how men, as a higher status group within society, are allowed to treat women - IMO this means they have to stop being allowed to buy us for sexual gratification and abuse, rape has to be taken seriously as a crime against gender equality, and porn (soft and hard) need to be considered misogynistic hate speech. Domestic violence needs to be addressed too. Until we achieve the above, women as a group will always be considered to be in a different and lower status class to men.

wraparound childcare and school holiday full time childcare that is free to all from school age and affordable or free pre school age. that would make a vast difference to women's lives and equality. it would also make a huge difference to home lives imo as women would be far less dependent on men and the less dependent women become the less shit they put up with and sooner or later surely men will have to raise their game? we're leaving them in droves, some of us aren't even bothering with one in the first place.

the answer from patriarchal societies point of view is to constantly deprive women of decent childcare and to make life as hard as possible for single mothers to deter women from living outside the heteronormative model. they complain single mothers are a drain on the system yet refuse to put systems in place that mean they are not such as in countries where childcare is good and free and you are expected to work.

if politics and the state would back off from moralising and social engineering and just crack on with giving us the infrastructure we need for modern lives life would be a lot easier for women.

Another post I agree with Beachcomber.

Agreed swallowedafly but the people who provide it need a living wage and then who can afford it-not the tax payer.

People don'wants want higher taxes. You can't say 'they'-we are the 'they' with our taxes.

Sorry ' don't want.'

And we also need to address the positive discrimination that men have benefited from since the year dot in politics. And that means quotas. We need women representatives in government if we want things to change.

From an article on the achievements of Iceland (the article is mostly about the sex industry but I found the following quote about a political tipping point very interesting with regards to gender equality in all spheres);

So how has Iceland managed it? To start with, it has a strong women's movement and a high number of female politicans. Almost half the parliamentarians are female and it was ranked fourth out of 130 countries on the international gender gap index (behind Norway, Finland and Sweden). All four of these Scandinavian countries have, to some degree, criminalised the purchase of sex (legislation that the UK will adopt on 1 April). "Once you break past the glass ceiling and have more than one third of female politicians," says Halldórsdóttir, "something changes. Feminist energy seems to permeate everything."