Deprogramming

[TheSparrowhawk]

This is a thread for feminists (not our regulars who like to hang out here and tell us how pointless feminism is) to address the ways in which growing up and living in a patriarchal society has affected our thinking. Essentially a self-help thread.

I have struggled with addressing my relationship with my parents. For years I blamed my mother for their total emotional neglect of me. It's only recently I've opened my eyes to the fact that whatever parenting I got, she did it, while also working full-time and doing most of the housework. My father did little or nothing. But I expected a lot more from my mother and so blamed her more.

I don't think your feelings about being a SAHM are at all unusual giraffe. They are totally understandable, given the constant emphasis that's placed all through education on 'achieving,' which always means getting good grades in order to land a well-paid job.

But think about it for a minute. What is the actual point of all those well-paid jobs if there are no people in the world? If all the women of the world finally had enough and said 'fuck it, we're not having any more babies' then everyone might as well just give up, because the human race would be extinct in about 100 years.

For anything to mean anything, the human race has to continue. And for that to happen women have to have babies and someone has to look after them, there's just no two ways about it. Anyone who cares for children is doing an absolutely vital job. If everyone in the world who cared for a child in some way threw their hands up and didn't bother any more the death toll would be enormous. It would be the worst catastrophe ever to befall the world.

Your work is absolutely vital, not to you and your family but to a world that needs healthy, well cared for people to take it over once we're too old to do it any more. You're preparing that next generation. What could be more important?

IMO all the idiots who wring their hands about extremists etc need to think long and hard about the way in which they have failed to free the women of this world from slavery has contributed to the situation we're in. How can a workforce of carers who have no freedom and no rights raise a healthy population?

Sparrowhawk - thankyou for this thread and all your insightful and supportive comments.

For my own part, I don't even know where to begin. Having my 4 children has been the most liberating, life- affirming thing I've done, yet simultaneously the most restrictive. I've been a SAHM for 14 years. As I approach 40, I often wonder how, despite my education, my role in life has essentially turned out to be no different to that of my mother, or of my grandmother before here - just in far more affluent circumstances. I wonder what happened to my career- driven, "feminist" 20- something self. But then I wonder, does it matter?

Discovering this feminist board has been like getting back in touch with myself - so thanks everyone!

I'm really glad it's been helpful Madinche.

I'm not sure what your situation is, and this isn't intended in any way to be a criticism, but I think it's madness that so many families split childcare and work so strictly between partners. It's a total lose/lose situation for both - the SAHP loses out on the ability to make their own money, the satisfaction of a career, the independence of being able to support themselves, the simple freedom of going out to work, while the WOHP misses out on raising the children, which I think is more of a loss in the long run. I'm absolutely not against SAHPs but I do think that where that setup exists, some effort has to be made to ensure the SAHP can have something outside of the family and that WOHP mucks in properly with day to day family stuff so that they don't become the distant, unknown parent whom the children never go to.

Yes totally agree.

I grew up in an extended family in a Southern European country where gender roles were quite distinct, as I think tends to happen when living conditions are quite tough - ie. men did most of the outdoor work because it was more physical, women the more indoor roles - (it was a farm). People didn't really have the luxury of worrying about gender roles, social conditioning, etc.

By the time I met DH, I was in London and had a professional career. I knew he was very obviously career driven when I met him, but the full implications of gender "conditioning" (his and mine) only really played out after children, I think. We have ended up in quite distinct roles, but it becomes difficult to deconstruct how much of this has been unconscious, how much was real choice and how much was simply driven by circumstances.

I think that is largely a product of the pay gap. Even when I was earning a decent salary, it was less than half of what DH earns - and only just matching what he earned as a new graduate. I've never been career minded, but even if I was I would have been hard pushed to match DH in earnings. It makes sense that if only one of us is working, it's the one who earns the most and has the greatest likelihood of a pay rise. It's depressing, though.

I think it's worth turning the whole SAHP/WOHP thing around. It always focuses on the woman and the weight of her choice on herself and her family. But what about the choice of the man not to be present as a parent? So many families with a SAHM have a father who works very long hours/works away a lot and who, when he is around, is still working/doesn't know what time school pickup is - is basically disengaged from his children's lives. He has chosen to have children but to essentially not be a parent in the real, practical sense of the word. Very very few women make the choice IME - even if they work in very high powered jobs they're still very much engaged with their children, from a distance at least. Men don't seem to see any problem with simply not knowing how their own household works. What does that mean for the family? I think in many cases it means that in the early years the SAHM is absolutely exhausted and often resentful of having to do an extremely difficult job essentially entirely on her own (whereas her husband has colleagues, work friends and a work structure to rely on). But as the children gets older and being a SAHM gets easier she finds she's on top of things and other than her husband's money she doesn't really need him for anything - he is not her partner in the true sense of the word, he simply lives in the house and is good company now and and again.

DH is definitely not guilty of that - unless he's away for work (not all that often) he always does breakfast in the morning, family teatime, bath and bed in the evening. And night wakings with both children.

I think fathers who show little interest in their children would do so whether or not the mother works, to be honest.

Finding this a fascinating thread- thank you all.

Sparrow on the SAHP/WOHP split, I agree it may be problematic to split roles so dramatically. The advantage I suppose is that the WOHP has freedoms to pursue their career without restrictions, which reaps rewards in terms of career ambitions and financially (certainly beneficial to the WOHP- arguably beneficial to the family unit). DH and I have a very even SAH/WOH split (he does 4 days, I compress my hours into 4 days) which is fabulous in terms of both of us having financial independence, both have interesting careers, both being able to run the household. But it does have a cost in that work trips away/unusual work requests/getting home late can be a real headache to juggle and we both have to decline some opportunities. It's limiting both our careers to an extent- though preferable to one of us not having a career at all (and the other not seeing a great deal of the DC).

The pay gap impacts on working women negatively after they have kids.

Well I work 4 days a week and so my pay has been impacted negatively. But, but, but I love it. I love being able to work and do stay at home stuff. Part time work is 'bad' for career progression but bloody brilliant as a life style choice.

We are still fighting on 'their' terms - who ever they are.
Paid work is good.
The more you are paid the better you are.
Men get paid more so they are better and happier.

Well a great big hell no to that.

I hope my DS want to stay at home, want to work part time, want to have a quality of life. I will not be judged on how much money I make. I will not assume someone is a success based on their pay.

Totally agree with all the points made here.

My DH was/is "programmed" into the belief that, as a man, you work hard to financially provide for your family and anything else (eg help round the house) is a bonus Not an easy one to "deprogram".

It's a double- edged sword really, because while it's given me the freedom to be with the kids and not have to worry about money, I'm very aware that as his earning power has increased, the "point" of me returning to work has decreased. This is obviously exacerbated by the fact that having 4 DC with roughly 2 year gaps between them has effectively meant that I was pregnant / with pre-school DC / breastfeeding for effectively 10 years. Obviously this has huge ramifications on my employability and pay - to the point where it can almost seem like a selfish decision to return to work when I weigh this up against the impact on the family as a whole and the fact that the extra money would be meaningless.

I don't feel resentful towards DH because fortunately, he's not detached in terms of his relationships with me or the kids. But, Spartowhawk is right - he has no clue whatsoever as to the day-to-day care of the DC and all that's involved there. I feel guilty saying it, but, while its lovely when he's home, my life is generally easier when he's on business trips - (less laundry and pasta will do for the kids)

Not sure I agree with this myself but...Madinche - does it matter if he doesn't understand as long as he is supportive and you are a team. Do you understand the details of his job, the stresses he is under?

As long as you are both happy.....

The next issue is do you want to return to work or just feel you should?

Bitof - well exactly. Even though we've had quite distinct roles it's been ok because there was never any question that any money wasn't "our" money. Also we do each have mutual respect for what the other does. I could not have been SAHM to a man who was financially- controlling or who I felt didn't value me in this role.

Like you, I've never really been someone whose self-worth is determined by how much money they make (or don't make, in my case)! I am looking to going back to work, but find that I swing between feeling that this is something I want for myself, as opposed to something that I should want. DH not especially keen, I have to say, but I think he can be worked on.

Anyway, I wouldn't want to derail this thread with my own issues. Except to say that It can be hard to disentangle yourself from societal and / or gender-based expectations. It's a bit like the guilt that comes with being a Catholic - you can rationalise yourself out of it, but it's still lurking there somewhere nevertheless!

Well the thread is about Deprogramming. Have you been programmed to put the needs of others above your needs?

You need to make decisions about a job based on what is best for your long term happiness. Others in the family may be put out for a short while but that is only fair.

Thankyou Bitof. Yes I'm slowly working on my own "re-programming" now that my youngest has started school and the fog of continual childcare is lifting a bit. These threads are really helpful to me and it's so interesting to hear other people's perspectives on their own circumstances and the choices they have made as women.

Speaking of putting other's needs above your own... I was horrified a few months ago to find myself saying to DD1 (not yet two at the time) that she shouldn't do whatever it was she was doing "because it will make mummy and daddy sad". And followed up sotto voce to DH "...and of course as a female you are responsible for how other people feel". Arrrgh! Obviously it is important to consider how other people feel, but I suspect it's not the ideal way to teach her to behave. Not for small transgressions, anyway.

Ohhh yes yes evilgiraffe that. We should never make people sad.

Unless we join a web community where we can express our deep seated hatred of women who use the title MS in the strongest possible terms because they are bitches who deserve to die.

I am a bit drunk but I think the point is valid.

There is also the issue of headspace.

My DH is doing more and more as he gets better in himself. The responsibility for what happens, however, or simply the recognition of what needs to be done, however, is still mine. Of course, there are the obvious things like housework, cooking, clothing etc. But there is other stuff. Don't want your 4yo to watch TV all day? Thinking of stuff for him to do doesn't happen two minutes before he gets bored. Homework due? Friends birthdays? Or even just the look, I can tell he isn't happy about something, and I know he likes to talk about this stuff after he's in bed with the lights out. So someone needs to remember to bring it up with him at that point.

Headspace. And I have so much in there that sometimes it's not that I don't have time for my career, but I very honestly just don't have headspace. But of course that's seen as me just being lazy, or preferring to parent, as I should as a woman.

I'm not sure I understood your point about evil bitches deserving to die, bitof - is that happening here? (it wouldn't be the first time).

There was a very bad tempered mrs, miss,ms thread recently........

The headspace thing is a huge issue. Running a home and a family is very complicated and involves a lot of forward planning. If only one person takes on all of that planning then they'll be so bogged down with the relentlessness of it that they'll feel it's impossible to commit to anything else.

That's another reason why I'm not keen on the strict SAHP/WOHP split. It may be that essentially both partners are ok with it, money is shared equally etc but the fact is that running a home is tedious - there is very little of the challenge and reward found in paid jobs. Doing it almost entirely alone is especially hard. If one partner is bogged down in endless relentless detail while the other goes out, learns, meets people, gets promotions that is simply not fair. The working parent is getting far too much of the good deal - a job that they would have anyway if they were single, plus children they don't need to ever worry about, plus a clean house, cooked meals, laundry done etc etc. while the other person loses a huge amount - freedom, their own money (as opposed to shared money), the ability to grow and learn professionally etc. There is a huge benefit to being at home with children, but that benefit is largely confined to the children and the child/parent relationship. The parent, as an individual, gets lost in the whole thing. One day they're made redundant, when the children grow up and no longer need so much input, and what do they do then? What does the man who missed so much of his children's childhood do when he sees adults he never really took care of walking away? There is too much lost and not enough gained IMO.

YY to the headspace thing - couldn't have said it better myself!

There is the other perspective though, that if both parents work (even if one is part- time) there is always going to be the inevitable "juggling game" (eg. which parent can take time off for this or that school event, holidays, etc) which can equally lead to conflict and resentment - particularly as, most of the time, it will be the woman who tends to be the one to compromise here. It's still stress which affects headspace - just a different kind of stress. Some people juggle better than others. Some people are more resilient to the day-to-day "humdrum" of being SAHM. To be honest, many (most) jobs are pretty humdrum too, unless you're one of the lucky ones who has found their vocation or something.

Of course, this does avoid the scenario that one person's career continues unhindered while the other's is non-existent.

As long as the woman does not feel undervalued or financially controlled by the DH, his career progression will obviously benefit her as well. Obviously, she will be entitled to half of everything in the event of a separation and, in many cases, would still be better off financially than if she was working.

As someone said above, for many people, the SAHM model just makes financial sense.

Also, not everybody has the kind of DH who has the work flexibility to be able to take up some slack at home, even if he had the inclination to do so.

I absolutely agree on the headspace thing. I'm the primary (only) breadwinner but DH for the most part is very rubbish at forward planning so I do quite a lot of it. I'm trying to let him just get on with things and be the person-in-charge for a lot of DD's stuff like nursery and activities, but it's very hard when I see things getting missed. Or done in what I consider to be a slightly half-arsed manner.

The fact that part time working can also lead to resentment and the woman being default carer is all part of the same problem. Both men and women have children (with the obvious difference in terms of pregnancy and birth) yet the working world is built for people with no caring responsibilities, such that the 'allowances' for childbirth etc are tacked on and are seen as an inconvenience. Given that it's essential for a large proportion of any working generation to have children, the fact that caring for children isn't built in to work structures makes no sense. Well, it makes sense in a world where women are expected to give up all hope of a successful career and simply provide the care for free and at great personal cost.

The situation in whch being a SAHM seems inevitable isn't an unavoidable one by any means.

Also to be fair Madinche most jobs that support a whole family comfortably are not particularly humdrum, and there is enormous privilege and advantage in being able to pursue a lucrative career that attracts reward and recognition while never having to worry about childcare and while having the household lovingly run by someone who is highly invested in it but who receives no direct pay, recognition or advancement. In the event of a split the SAHP may be financially ok but the WOHP walks away with a well paying job and the years of advantage of having someone run their life for them. The SAHP meanwhile is often left as a single parent with little in the way of career prospects. The inequality is huge.

and there is enormous privilege and advantage in being able to pursue a lucrative career that attracts reward and recognition while never having to worry about childcare and while having the household lovingly run by someone who is highly invested in it but who receives no direct pay, recognition or advancement. In the event of a split the SAHP may be financially ok but the WOHP walks away with a well paying job and the years of advantage of having someone run their life for them. The SAHP meanwhile is often left as a single parent with little in the way of career prospects. The inequality is huge

What do you suggest then?

One could equally say there is enormous privilege and advantage in being able to opt out of the pressires of the labour market.

So far as the unpaid element- again what are you looking for? Wages for housework?

So far as recognition - by whom ? The partner who is working? Society? What form of recognition?