Just pondering a comment I read on the SelfSufficientish forum (wonderful place, full of lots of ideas and enthusiasm for everyone from windowsill growers to off-grid-ers), that suggested that self-sufficiency usually results in the woman staying at home and keeping house, rather than the man.
So, does self sufficiency mean regressing half a century or more?
Any kind of degree of self sufficiency inevitably means a bigger commitment to the home. The amount of time committed varies from household to household, but from our meagre efforts at vegetable growing, bread making and making-do-and-mending, I can confidently state that we wouldn't be able to manage even that if I was working full time.
In our case, I do all of the veg encouragement/trimming (my tomatoes are about seven feet tall. I have not the least idea why), most of the cooking (bread baking etc and any meals that cook for a long time), some of the cleaning (well, I put the laundry on, I'm keeping quiet about the fact that Adam does pretty much everything else) and all of the daytime childcare (except for the brief respite of part time journalism, when he's at the childminder). But this isn't, as far as I can tell, because I'm a repressed housewife. I may be wrong, but I think it's because I'm actually not hugely enthusiastic about the whole office thing, and prefer to spend my time saving us the equivalent of my salary after childcare by growing veg and making stuff to actually going and earning money.
So in our case, yes, any degree of self sufficiency will tie me, the woman, to the home more, and make it even harder for me to get a proper job. But in my mind, that's a plus side, not a problem. Why on earth would I want to go and get a real job when I can sit at home and bake bread and grow vegetables and figure out what on earth tahini is (houmous, anyone?).
I can see that, with many families, it will be the woman who takes on the 'homemaker' role (although in a self sufficient household, homemaker might mean exactly that). However, there's no particular reason, apart from society norms, why in a traditional but self sufficient family unit it ought to be the woman who stays at home rather than the man. If the woman has higher earning potential or likes her job more (or her kids less!) than her partner, there's absolutely no reason why the role can't be shared or given lock stock and barrel to the male half of the family.
So, in conclusion, I am not repressed. There you go. Come to me, have your complex societal issues solved in under 500 words.
So, does self sufficiency mean regressing half a century or more?
Any kind of degree of self sufficiency inevitably means a bigger commitment to the home. The amount of time committed varies from household to household, but from our meagre efforts at vegetable growing, bread making and making-do-and-mending, I can confidently state that we wouldn't be able to manage even that if I was working full time.
In our case, I do all of the veg encouragement/trimming (my tomatoes are about seven feet tall. I have not the least idea why), most of the cooking (bread baking etc and any meals that cook for a long time), some of the cleaning (well, I put the laundry on, I'm keeping quiet about the fact that Adam does pretty much everything else) and all of the daytime childcare (except for the brief respite of part time journalism, when he's at the childminder). But this isn't, as far as I can tell, because I'm a repressed housewife. I may be wrong, but I think it's because I'm actually not hugely enthusiastic about the whole office thing, and prefer to spend my time saving us the equivalent of my salary after childcare by growing veg and making stuff to actually going and earning money.
So in our case, yes, any degree of self sufficiency will tie me, the woman, to the home more, and make it even harder for me to get a proper job. But in my mind, that's a plus side, not a problem. Why on earth would I want to go and get a real job when I can sit at home and bake bread and grow vegetables and figure out what on earth tahini is (houmous, anyone?).
I can see that, with many families, it will be the woman who takes on the 'homemaker' role (although in a self sufficient household, homemaker might mean exactly that). However, there's no particular reason, apart from society norms, why in a traditional but self sufficient family unit it ought to be the woman who stays at home rather than the man. If the woman has higher earning potential or likes her job more (or her kids less!) than her partner, there's absolutely no reason why the role can't be shared or given lock stock and barrel to the male half of the family.
So, in conclusion, I am not repressed. There you go. Come to me, have your complex societal issues solved in under 500 words.
Comments