Wifework- I don't get it...

[louloutheshamed]

I have lurked here for a while and thought I'd try and boost my feminist credentials by doing some reading. So i read delusions of gender which I loved, I felt it articulated a lot I what I feel and experience in my life.

I have moved onto wifework and I'm just a bit baffled by it. It's Fascinating and coherently argued but the thing is I just don't recognise her description of marriage in my own marriage or those of many of my friends and peers. A typical husband as she describes would be generally accepted as a useless sorry waste of space by me and my friends, we just would not accept it. obviously I know these types
Of husbands/marriages exist but they are generally accepted to be crap. So many threads in relationships describe unequal
Partnerships but then there is always virtually a unanimous Condemnation of this behaviour by other posters.

I accept that I am slightly unusual in that I work full time and my husband went pt on the birth of my son. He does huge amounts of what is described as 'wifework' in the book, probably more than me. Moushart often starts sentences with 'I don't suppose there is a woman alive who hasn't experienced this..." and I am Screaming "well I haven't!!"

Perhaps I am the exception that proves the rule but it doesn't feel Like it in my experience. I don't even recognise my parents or in laws marriages in it as much as she suggests...

I also think, having read delusions first, that Moushart relies a lot on 'essentialist' (not sure if that is correct term) differences between genders rather than social constructs. I find it all a bit negative and bitter. When she describes how when she first got married suddenly felt like she had to be a domestic goddess type-??? I just felt like saying 'more fool you!'

Can anyone enlighten me as to what I am missing?

[badguider]

I thought 'wifework' was the emotional caring work and organising, not the actual housework?
[haven't read the book though]

[LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy]

Well, precisely.

I'm not suggesting we drop these things.

I'm saying that I find it really crap that when women complain about their men not doing these things, we're constantly told 'ah, you just have different standards'. And with apologies to kim, who just happens to be the person who said it this time, I really, really, really think that's a shit excuse.

I like living in a reasonably clean house and staying in touch with my friends and relatives. I am not going to pretend otherwise just so DH and I can do an 'equal' (and minimal) amount of housework.

[AnyOldFucker]

I talk to my husband all the time about the "invisible" work, that is a great way of articulating it

in 20 years of marriage, he is getting there in understanding it

he sympathises and says he realises what it means, but does he really get it, or is he still a product of his upbringing ?

when he plans ahead instead of just turning up and smiling happily at how things have "just fallen into place like they always do, I don't know what you are getting stressed about" then I will know

we are not there yet

[LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy]

Sorry, that was to zut.

kim - nope, it should be 'I', because the point is 'we' don't all have this stuff. But I do.

[LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy]

When you find the magic way to articulate it, AF, let me know?

I find it reassuring you say you don't know yet, because I seem to be getting there slowly but I definitely don't think we're 'there'!

[ZutAlorsDidier]

Ok I guess "economically inactive" is not accurate, but women having direct access to a living wage - that is something that the patriarchy tried very hard to prevent (as you remember - Barbara Castle's equal pay act of 1970 was passionately opposed on the grounds that it took money from working men, who needed it to support families; my aunt, who got married in about 1967, didn't tell anyone and took her wedding ring off to go to work as she would have lost her job - ok in that case she wasn't considered to be unemployable because she was female, but because she was married and her labour belonged to her husband now)
Women's work has been very low paid because their prime job has been considered to be at home, their labour "owed" to their husbands

[ZutAlorsDidier]

• and of course, if they can live and love and support children without being economically dependent on a husband, that would be a disaster for abusive gits who find themselves single and having to wash their own shirts. That is really why, and that is the basis of right wing benefits howling. Anything that releases women from abusive husbands gets up those twats' noses something rotten

[LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy]

Yes, sure, well put.

[AnyOldFucker]

LRD, I certainly find it more "real" somehow to examine these things more closely

to outsiders, I expect my DH is the epitome of a "new man" who does his fair share

I don't take that away from him, but a bit more auto-direction and a bit less waiting to be advised would go down well

[BasilBabyEater]

Your grandad sounds perfectly lovely Zut.

[peteypiranha]

I think you have to be a little selfish and lazy to get what Ive got. I just would never be arsed to do it so if dh wanted his family to have cards and pressies he would send them. I might think hmmm could get mil a xmas pressie, but then I never get round to it. I think that came from bring young, as I only cared about getting drunk etc so obviously dh wanted his family to gave stuff so did it, and its just stuck.

I have been like that with most things really. I wouldnt get up in night with dd1 unless dh got up but again that was so I could boot him out of bed to get stuff I need etc. That way didnt really have to negotiate anything, its just my pure cant be arsed ness about stuff.

[ZutAlorsDidier]

Yes it's great that we have washing machines, etc, but this is why you really have to keep an eye on mission creep - the eejits who iron boxers, etc.
There was a time when no one washed anything but linen next to the skin from one year to the next (which is why you had sunday best, and your other suit was not expected to be quite so pukka) and the linen you washed, once a week, did not have to be changed every day. then someone got a twin tub and she thought she was laughing. She thought "I can do a day's work in a morning now!" so they moved the goal posts - now you have to wash shirts and pants every day. So she got an automatic washing machine. Oh, no, that doesn't mean you actually get any free time. Now you have to wash everything that has been even slightly worn, every day. AND you have to to it after a day's work for money, somewhere else, and you have to feel grateful for having a washing machine. (I do not. I have seen lunatics on here confessing to doing 4 washes a day because in their family everyone has daily clean pjs, work clothes / school uniform, gym clothes, and sitting about in the evening clothes. All clean, every day. And they are proud of it!)

Ok it's a continuum, isn't it - one (wo)man's clean shirt is another )wo)man's ironed, fourth pair of boxers. But I do think you have to keep an eye on it.

[LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy]

That's really sad you feel that way, petey.

You're not being 'selfish and lazy'. This is what we're all saying - you're judging yourself for something totally normal and rational - it's so easy to do, you're not even perhaps aware you're doing it.

But ask yourself this: what would happen if you took a step back and say, maybe, I'm not being selfish and lazy? Maybe it's ok I want an equal relationship?

I think that is what you have to do.

[peteypiranha]

Dh does a lot lot more than me. I will admit I can be lazy. I do more paid work though.

[LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy]

I love 'mission creep'.

Absolutely.

Though, it's perfectly ok to say, damn, I like not living in 1384 and having clean knickers every day.

[ZutAlorsDidier]

Thanks, Basil! he was.

[ZutAlorsDidier]

but petey "selfish" and "lazy" are stealth boasts, you are implicitly blaming women who do all the work for not managing their husbands better. If they just put their feet down, it would be fine. It doesn't work like that. you can't make someone do something. You can try but all you are doing is reminding the other person something they have already agreed to or not. If they think "oh shit I should be getting up too" that is not because you made them feel responsible, that is because you reminded them that in their hearts they think they should be doing something. If they think in their hearts that it is not their problem, whatever you do will have a bad outcome; rancour, maybe, or violence. Because you are a nag, you see.

In general you have two options in life with people; ask them to do things, or end the relationship. if you work with someone who refuses to do as they are asked, you can sack them. If you work with a boss who refuses to treat you well, you can leave. If you are friends with someone who keeps dicking you about, you can stop seeing her. If you have a relationship with a man who won't lift a finger, you can put up with it, tell yourself stories about how it's fine really, or you can leave. c'est ca.

It's not fair either way to blame a woman for her husband's behaviour.

LRD, me too. about the knickers.

[peteypiranha]

I do think they will do it if they are bothered. For instance I cant see many men not sending a pressie to their mum. Its not managing anything really its just not doing something. I dont manage dh I just let him do his thing.

[LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy]

I don't think it's stealth boasting, just assuming everyone's relationship must be nice because your own seems nice right now.

It's not a horrible way to be, just something most of us think at some stage or another.

[ZutAlorsDidier]

I think it is (I am influenced by remembering another thread, which might be bad form). I think Peteypirhana is very keen that we all know how good she is at taking no shit and that is why no shit comes her way. I wish. I do bloody well wish that was how shit decided which way to go.
PP are you very young?

[AnyOldFucker]

not boasting, but certainly a very narrow and limited view of what life is like for many people

[peteypiranha]

I am 29 and dh 28 so not too young but quite young by mn standards

[AnyOldFucker]

perhaps when she grows up a bit, the grey areas will become a bit more visible

I am sure I was more black and white when I was younger and knew less

or perhaps she will always be an opinionated piece of work with zero empathy for others, who knows (or cares, really) < shrug > ?

[LRDYaDumayuShtoTiKrasiviy]

I'm not sure age is an excuse, TBH.

I didn't know 29 was particularly young by MN standards, either.

I do think the idea that society couldn't possibly be an influence (which comes out of this thread) is a fairly recent trend, so it's associated with youth.

[peteypiranha]

I just am yet to see any concrete ways in which society is going to change. Marketing people are always going to attempt to play on peoples insecurities to sell everything from air fresheners to make up. You really dont have to buy in to anything you dont want. I realise some people are fighting against their upbringing, but I do believe individual relationships hold the key to changing society, and that starts with women expecting more for themselves.