In My Home

There is a saying "The hand which rocks the cradle, rules the world." There is nothing "powerless" about staying home and raising children. Of couse, when you are in a situation like this, the idea that the womyn still maintains some balance and "power" needs to remain intact. It took Bear and I years to work it out. I still sometimes get "Hey I bring home the money, so I can...." Can that shit. I also bring home some money (albeit, not as much as he does) but I take care of the kids full time (all four of them) and the house ect.

You have to have TRUST to make this relationship work. People, men or womyn, who are looking for a "50/50 split" in the workload, or trying to always one-up their partner will never make it. TRUST is the thing which has kept Bear and I together for 26 years, and together as a legal couple for 19 years. Is it a "50/50 split" Hell no. How can you compare going to work for 9 hours, and then having your day "end" with being up all night with a colicky baby, or breastfeeding for years on end? How can you compare being in control of what goes into and out of the checkbook, to maintaining a pregnancy? You can't make things "50/50." To try is ridiculous.

The ONLY way that relationships work is with trust. Whem womyn try to think that working 40-50 hour weeks, the balance is STILL off, because she still has a full time job waiting for her at home, especially if they have children. The inconsistancy of 70s style feminism is that there was the thought that everything would be a 50/50 split if womyn only left the home and got "jobs." This just put womyn into positions of MORE stress, children were basically left out of the picture. 50 hours a week in a day care center, still leaves a good part of the child's time IN the home. And to be honest, most young children prefer to be with mama. (Hey she's got the goods!) And kids DO do better at home (in normal situations) than in Institutional care for most of their waking hours.

Very poor and very rich womyn have benefitted from old school feminism. The rich womyn got to do what they wanted, and the poor womyn did get more rights. But the rest of us have been put into a situation where we often have to be away from our children when we simply don't want to. The kids don't benefit, the womyn don't benefit, and sometimes the men don't benefit. Of course we all know situations where some men have exploited old school feminist ideals to do basically NOTHING and have the womyn do most of the work, bread winning as well as home and child care. THESE guys have benefited from old school feminism more than anyone. And I don't think that was the goal of the old schoolers.

I consider myself a feminist. Womyn should have the same rights as men, the same benefits, equal pay for equal work, same abilities in finance ect. But in a relationship where there are children, things have to change. Kids make a
"50/50" relationship impossible. It is something that was forgotten by some old schoolers. It is up to OUR generation, and the ones younger than us to right this fundemental wrong and make feminism work properly for everyone. Men, womyn and children.

 

I'm not sure where you're deriving these conclusions from. What I'm saying is that there is still a large number of men who believe that a woman's place is in the home. If "liberated" women "choose" to be stay-at-home-moms, then they are only reinforcing this belief, causing other men to believe that this is the way it should be. And so slowly we start to lose the gains we've made. It has nothing at all to do with women being weak.

 

But when there are children involved, all the rhetoric about "gains" flies out the window.

I AM a feminist AND a SAHM. The two are not mutually exclusive. I also have a "job" as a WOHM, but my kids still come first. Feminism, at it's best, never forgets the children.

Personally, I see some gains, but not the ones we were promised. There are more job availabilties and securities (when was the last time you heard of a womyn being fired for getting pregnant?) but that promise that if we all just left home, threw the kids into institutional day care and made money, the men would start "behaving" and helping around the house, and stop beating us, simply never was a reality.

 

hegel and mill wrote about marriage as a master-slave relationship. granted, they wrote at a time when women weren't allowed to have custody of their children after a divorce, couldn't vote, etc.. so it's a bit dated, but a lot of their messages still hold true. they compair the husband (or whomever the breadwinner is.. but traditionally, it's the husband) to the master, and the wife to the slave. the master holds the power. he is seen as this great autonomous being, but the master is dependent upon his slave. the master exists for itself. in actuality, the slave is the superior. the slave knows it's own wants and needs, as well as those of the master; it is more aware of the self and another (not only the husband, but the children).

so then changes were made. women were allowed access to higher education, as well as high paying jobs. now the wife is allowed to be the master, and the husband the slave. still, their conscious positions are opposed. there's an opposition in the co-dependency.

even though roles have been reversed, there's still that dichotomy. either way, both partners are equally deprived. the master is more independent and is for itself. the slave is more dependent, the essence of the other, thus it is more for another. the master mediates through the slave, the slave erases the negativity, and thus brings the master enjoyment. hegel describes multi-levels of inter-connection and such. hegel's basic idea was that the self emerges through it's relations to others. mill felt that marriage needed to be changed, so that people can better develop themselves and have more room for happiness. it's a pretty complex theory that i can't remember completely, and this is long enough already.

the idea of the traditional marriage is simple and nice, but some changes have to go on within it. even women who work outside of the home do twice as much housework, on average, as men. i'm not sure exactly what the changes would entail, though. changes would also need to be made outside of the marriage. for example, companies should make paternity leave more widely available. being a stay-at-home-mom should be recognized as real work, and i'd go so far as to say it should be paid work (but that would entail an element of socialism, and that's a different subject).

 

it seems like there's a lot of confusion about feminism, too. like saying you're not a feminist, but you are a women's rights advocate. so, in the name of clarity, i'm going to try and offer up the essential definition of feminism.

there are three different approaches to feminism. i think the confusion about feminism comes from trying to come up with one common approach. anyway, these three views are liberal feminism, cultural feminism and radical feminism.

liberal feminism focuses on gender equality. they want equal opportunities for both men and women. generally, they claim that gender differences are relatively small. super_grrl's statement, "real feminism is about being equal," displays a liberal feminist attitude, for example.

cultural feminism emphasizes the differences between genders, and focuses on the positive differences. for example, if you feel that women are better nurturers, and you should stay home because of that, you're reflecting a cultural feminist viewpoint.

radical feminism argues that women's oppression is in the sex/gender system, rather than simply the laws. they feel massive social change must occur to correct this problem. if you say that housework makes you feel like a servant because of the way your marriage is set up, you are reflecting a radical feminist attitude.

there are also little subdivisions. profeminists focus on eliminating gender stereotypes, inequalities and violence. and then there are ecofeminists, who oppose the way people destroy animals, natural resources and each other.

i'm not trying to be condescending by giving a definition of feminism. but it's rare to find two people that have identical definitions of feminism. often, people view feminism as one thing, and develop their own personal view based on their interpretation of the definition. this is why people say, "i'm not a feminist, but... ______". this is also why a lot of people have skewed views of feminism, or see all feminists as militant.

 

I've never quite agreed with the comparison of marriage to slavery as marriage is a natural outgrowth of the necessity for a man and a woman to participate in the raising of the offspring that they produce. Every marriage is going to differ based on the character of the individuals involved, and there are of course going to be men who brutes and don't treat their wives right. But this doesn't make the institution of marriage as a whole akin to "slavery".

As for mothers being paid to raise their children--I find that totally absurd. Why should anyone be paid for raising their own children? In essence, it would make the mother an employee of the father; in other words, would again make her his servant. That's just not right.

 

i agree with you; you certainly misinterperated my point. i appologize if it wasn't clear.

marriage is not slavery, but there is a hierarchy in it. because of this hierarchy, the "natural outgrowth" you're talking about is unbalanched. for example, mothers are able to spend more time with their children, thus it's possible that the father could be deprived of a full relationship with his kids. i agree with what you're saying. marriage NEEDS to be able to "differ based on the character of the individuals involved." that was exactly the point mill and hegel were making.

and again, you're absolutely right -- the mother should NOT be paid by the father. i never said the father should pay her, i implied that the state should pay her. that is why i said, "but that would entail an element of socialism and that's another subject." that would raise a whole new slew of opinions, so i left it at that, that socialism is another subect. i say this in part because our capitalist society is set up in a way that only recognizes paid work as work. i also say this because many parents have to work outside of the home, and this might encourage some to stay home who would not normally be able to.

 

Blabla about all the rolls and everything. In my home we do what works. Being a woman is about being whole. Be whole doing what you can do to be whole. If that means you stay home do it...if that means go to work do it. Can't live your life by other peoples standards of what they think things mean. Because people have to take care of their families regardless of whatever category they want to be in.

 

true equality is realizing that women and men are equals but in different ways. Personally I would go nuts if I didn't work but that would have to change before I would decide to have kids. One parent should be at home you owe it to the kids-at least untill they are in school for a full day. But no if it works in your relationship than it's not strange at all and if both of you are content with the arrangement than why worry about feminist idealism?

 

Yes I completely agree with you , the basis of any relationship is trust, but when you are trying to see through a lense - like the feminist one , you really have to bring up issues like power etc into the picture and debate on it. However ,that does not mean that these things like power shifts etc are there in every relationship.

 

I derive my conclusions from your statements. I was only curious to see why you thought that just because men think something and women reinforce it , it will cause women to go change their ways.

 

We have to worry about feminist idealism because it stirs new ideas into people's minds by which they can not only liberate themselves, but confuse themselves afterwards haha! .

 

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Wow, could you misunderstand me any more than that??? Oh yeah, I kicked him out SIX YEARS AFTER THE FACT, because he decided to retire!!! ROTF

How is it that he decided that it was time to retire??? He decided to stop working. He quit his job. Without discussing it with me, he just up and stopped working. At 40 years old, with no savings and no other form of income, he decided that the world owed him a living. He quit driving truck and I had to go to work. I was completely unprepared for this, since I had not worked in a very long time. Yeah, it was quite irksome...

Why did I kick him out??? Because he turned into a complete jerk. He did NOTHING... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but watch TV. I was working, full time or overtime, to make ends meet for us. I didn't make enough, so we were on Food Stamps, most of the time. He was depressed, angry, abusive and impossible to live with. This had gone on for a few years.

I didn't mind him being the parent that stayed home with the kids. But, I had to work 40 hours a week, came home and cooked dinner, did the laundry, cleaned the house, cleaned the children, did the shopping, everything! He did nothing to support the breadwinner, like I used to do for him. Did this make me angry and resentful? You bet it did.

One year before I asked him to leave, I gave him an ultimatum. I told him that I could not continue to live with someone so incredibly miserable. He was unhappy, I was unhappy and the children were unhappy. I told him that he was to either go get counseling, or he had to go. Exactly one year later, he still had done NOTHING to get help, so I told him to leave.

But, I have to thank him... Because I learned how to be the breadwinner. So when the time came for me to kick him out, I knew I could survive without him. You have to remember... When we got together, I was a VERY dependent 19 year old girl, who could not ever imagine living on her own, let alone supporting children. But, I got great practice for a few years. So now, I'm not afraid...

 

Exactly, Jedi. Thank you for reading my post correctly.

 

I think this thread is very productive. I am learning a lot and for the most part, we are listening to each other.


I just learned I am a Cultural Feminist. Makes sense to me.

Jedi, I am glad we are really on the same wavelength here.

Auburn,

I think you are being generous calling it "retiring" I would have called it "Becoming a bum." You put up with a lot, and did the right thing in the end. I am sorry you had to go through such an ordeal. Did your ex ever get help for his problem? Is he working now? Paying child support? My thoughts are with you and your kids. I am glad you guys survived and are doing OK now.

 

LOL... Yeah, I am trying to be nice, calling it "retiring". "Becoming a bum" is also a fairly accurate description, IMO... LOL

I did put up with a lot. And I really, really tried to make it better. I went to counseling... I read every couples self help book out there... I encouraged him to do the same, to no avail. Then, I found myself over-compensating with the children.

He was very mean to the kids. He NEVER said a kind word to them. He NEVER spoke in a low tone, to them. He was always yelling and telling them to leave the room. I found myself being extra nice and letting them get away with a lot, to make up for how horrible he was being. Trying to balance it out. I got so sick of doing that (I know that being too lenient is just as bad as being too strict) and so sick of telling him that he needs to be nicer. After 5 years of that, I broke...

He still has not sought any kind of counseling. However, he told me that he met someone that has two small children. When I expressed my concern to him about the fact that he really doesn't like kids, he said "Oh, I've been working on myself." Right, whatever...

No, he is not working. Actually, near the end of our relationship, he ended up getting on SSI. He has a multitude of problems, that I truly believe he brought on himself. So, he is still not working. But, his son (my step son) has mental problems, so he also gets SSI for him. He got that, after we split up.

Child support? ROTF... No, he doesn't pay child support. Neither of my ex's have ever paid me anything. But it's okay, because I have always retained sole legal and sole physical custody of my kids. I took it as a fair trade: you don't pay me anything and I can move my kids to another state or country if I want to. It worked well for a gypsy, such as me... And a little over a year ago, my eldest decided to go live with his dad, so, he can have all the expenses now. And no, I do not pay child support to him. Call me a deadbeat mom, but he didn't pay for 15 years, I figure he can spot me the last 3...

 

You're a survivor, Autumn!

Blessings.

 

I never think I'm as strong, as I really am. But, yeah, looking back at life, I've survived an awful lot. LOL I just won't stay down. I get knocked down a lot, but I refuse to stay there... It's funny...

Ooops, I think we hijacked the thread... Sorry about that, everyone!

 

No. A womans rights advocate believes that women have the right to choose whatever they want to be without having to put men down. We also believe that it is not exploitation for a woman to be a wife, or a mom, or even a porn star, since those are all choices that a woman makes on her own. Let me put it this way...did you ever see the E! True Hollywood Story about porn star Jena Jameson? Well, they had a feminist on there that people like me are against....the type who insists that ALL women who go into porn are forced into it. And she kept saying it even after Jena insisted that it was her choice! As a womans rights advocate, I respect Jena's choice. Her abilty to choose is power.

 

I work and go to school.