To have or to have not?

A couple of weeks ago, I heard part of a radio debate on "the housewife". At the time I started a posting about it but never got round to getting it live. I came across it the today and decided to finish it, so whilst the idea is a few weeks old the sentiment it arose in me is still current. The programme addressed many questions; what is the modern day definition of a "housewife" Does such a person exist in the sense they used to? In Victorian times a woman married and took over the running of the house which may have involved the supervision of a team of staff to ensure the smooth running of the house. That was her career, although the terminology was never used.

Today, the term "housewife" is generally used disparagingly, as more and more women are expected to mix, motherhood and looking after the home with a career and God willing, a successful career too. Many tasks are shared with their equally evolved partners but while most happily share the parenting and career aspects, when it comes to household tasks it appears there is still a stigma about men helping with many of these. Fewer men seem prepared to equally share the load.. A rise in the number of people employing external services to do their cleaning, ironing and cooking suggests women too are less inclined to do all these tasks without some assistance.

The discussion was interesting because it was about the same time as Alan Millburn's decision to end his political creer in favour of spending more time with his wife and young family. A decision I greatly admired. Too many people it seems, are caught up with the pressure to manage a successful career to the detriment of their family life. As he acknowledged, the media will no doubt attempt to lay the blame at some scandal to do with his private life, financial position, political viewpoint or any combination thereof and will be reluctant to accept the real reason - that he realised his family come before any job and quality of life is more important than endlessly pounding the tread-mill that is the rat-race, to chase a successful career. I have an idylic vision of family Millburn sharing all the tasks of washing, ironing, cleaning at home, together whilst looking after their son, also together.

But it made me wonder, is it better or worse for a man to admit that the influence society has on him is turning him away from family values? Personally, I was heartened by his decision. A man who has spent much of the six years of his young son's life missing him growing up. Some might say it is too late. But it is never too late to try to make amends to family. Hopefully his son will remember the times from now on much more fondly than any early memories he may have of his father not being there.

But does this mean that we should leave the high powered pressurised jobs to those without family? If that is so, how do we get a balanced view in all the jobs involved with the important tasks of running the country? Should we really leave pro-creation to those who are happy to settle for lesser jobs? Of course not. Should we only choose a career if we are prepared to forgoe family life? Of course not. What would happen to society if we created these barriers? The more worrying aspect is, are they already silently gestating?

Some will criticise Millburn's decision, saying that financially he was in a position to give up. I would agree with this. He is very privilaged - too many people are forced into work situations just to enable them to make ends meet. But in all honesty, how many of us would really be in the jobs we were in if it wasn't for the money? But even if he is financially able to give up, it is still something society tells us is not done. It would seem that the barriers about women having a career instead of staying at home to be "housewives" are coming down but this equality argument is based on the fact that men still work. It makes his decision even more poignant.

Family should come first. Children are important. Their upbringing, their personal, moral and social development is the responsibility of their parents - which is why tagging ten year old's is an abhorant idea. Children are the future of all our existance so enabling them to grow up in a stable environment to give them a balanced upbringing is vital. For many, trying to fulfill all societies expectations of parenthood, employee status and all round perfect socialite is just too much. It leads to frustration, overwork, unfulfilment, guilt and feelings of inadequacy. How can we bring up balanced children in an environment like that?

Personally, I admit to occassions of looking at my childless friends with envy about their unrestricted life-style but perhaps there are times they envy the companionship and unconditional love children and parents are capable of sharing. Who knows? There is no right or wrong where work and family are concerned. To have or to have not is a choice and it is one on-one should feel pressurised into feeling they have made the wrong choice. Equally changing your opinion only enhances an individuals ability to be flexible enough to know what is right for them at a specific time in their life.

If Alan Millburn wants to return to work again at a later date, that would be acceptable too. Whether you agree with it or not, it is his choice and not one society should force him or anyone else to make. It is a bleak future for our society if competition in everything forces us to loose sight of basic values. I would love to say I think we are all balanced enough to accept that if a man or woman chooses to stay at home to fulfil their own personal idea of family values, whether that is as a "housewife" or "househusband" it would be accepted. Sadly I fear that perhaps the concept is as outdated as the terminology.