I know enough to stay in my lane and look forward to women who contribute to The Line comment boards for their take on the situation.
If I was offered odds on the tipping point for women heading away from the left, feminist views of the world, my preference would be the overt undermining of a woman’s role in raising their children. Government mandated day care options and school boards pretending that families only have a role in their childrens education if the school board says they can are just two examples of overreach that needs correction.
I am old enough to remember how the Dower Act hung like a patriarchal relic over the heads of women. It was pretty condescending for a neighbour and I to step out of a law office while the lawyer ascertained that the neighbours wife was of sound mind and could agree to the terms of a lease of her own accord.
Thankfully, the Dower Act is history and its repeal is just but one little step forward for women’s equality. Note I said equality, not equity.
Therefore, I think that staying in one’s lane is a good strategy, but it is also important to recognize that hard fought gains for women’s rights can be chipped away by people with other agendas. I can be an ally, but people like you and Ms. Paradis will be the articulate spokeswomen.
Finally!!! I'm so relieved to read this article. As a self employed woman who had a stay at home mom, I'm thrilled to see that women are waking up to the value of working in the home. The stay at home mothers in my community growing up in the 60's and 70's were the heart of the home and community. Their value was immeasurable. Of course I also value women doctors, engineers etc. but women can enrich society equally by raising their children, learning to cook without relying on processed foods, learning to garden, sew, and teach their children. It will change neighbourhoods for the better. Women should feel free to be either a stay at home mom or work outside the home in any capacity they choose. It shouldn't be about what certain areas of society decree are right such as feminism which has denigrated stay at home moms. I'm grateful for the feminist movement that got me the vote and other things I wouldn't have had access to but I'm encouraged to see that women are now thinking for themselves and discovering that working at home is a worthy and valuable job.
Melanie, what an uplifting article. I’m an old man but I have a wife, three daughters and four grandchildren, one of them an amazing young girl. I coached girls soccer for a big chunk of my adult life. I loved your common-sense story. The greatest joy in life is not the bonus at work, it’s the family dinner.
Interesting article. I would add gender ideology as examples of what is making women feel alienated and driving them to consider homeschool and homesteading.
Children and teens are being told that they can identify as the opposite sex just by changing their name and pronouns. For some kids, this will be a phase. But for others, it will set them on a path to hormones and surgery.
Depending on where you work, the HR and EDI programs at your workplace may be insisting that any man who uses female pronouns or a female name has a right to women’s bathrooms and other private spaces. If you don’t agree, you’re cast as a transphobic bigot. Why is wearing heels and a dress enough to be classified as a woman, but having a vagina isn’t?
Women and children bear the brunt of this ideology. While all of Canada’s political parties go along with this, the Liberals and NDP are the biggest boosters.
Well said. Even though the Conservatives have been mostly quiet about this, they are most likely to act to counter the imposition of this worldview. This delusion is what ended my lifelong affiliation with left-leaning politics.
I really hope that this is true - that women are finally understanding that we’ve been sold a bag of rocks. Women haven’t attained freedom in being expected to work full time AND run a home AND raise a family AND now look after family members who are living far beyond a good quality of life, we’ve just been made SO busy and tired, we don’t even know where we are anymore and we’re not able to reach our full potential in anything we do. Don’t even get me started on the impact this has had on our relationships and our children!
As for the economic impact, an excellent compromise has always been meaningful part-time work which is largely unsupported by industry or government in this country - yet ANOTHER misuse of valuable resources!
When one of my kids was born, I did the math, and it didn't make sense to go back to work to lose most of my cheque to childcare. I also didn't WANT to go back to work - I wanted to be the one raising my kids, creating memories, instilling values and morals, helping them learn to ride a bike or patching up a skinned knee. My kids are teens now. I'm back in the work force (though still dream of being a SAHM - but really I'm not needed in that role anymore and financially need to work) BUT I hope my own kids have that choice. I guess by the standards of this article, I became a "homesteading" mom in the mid to late 2000's, ahead of the covid era. I can preserves, have a garden, knit, and homeschool. I've voted for many different parties over the years, but am solidly in that 35-54 demographic group and have full intention of voting conservative this next election. (Though I live in a current conservative riding so my vote will just make it more likely to stay that way - I don't think it will swing.)
Enjoyed this perspective. It will be interesting to see if this is truly a cultural shift or merely part of more temporary post-pandemic effects. I confess to rooting for the former. Women should be able to organize their lives in any way they think best suits them and their families. That’s the kind of freedom we’ve fought for and governments shouldn’t be getting in the way of that.
Very interesting article. I'm not sure it's a partisan issue. The truth is that our Gouvernments have mismanaged our collective wealth to the extent that our social programs are unsustainable. While businesses cry about the lack of cheap labour so they can make more grommets to export, the truth is that Gouvernments believe that immigrants are the only way to save these programs.
So for every Woman who chooses to leave the workforce, someone will have to replace them.
Very sad state of affairs for one of the wealthiest countries in the World.
This article describes my choices and those of many women I know. RNs, teachers, Masters degrees and more. And I’m the only one without my own chickens! The only thing I wish you’d said Melanie is that this makes me a perma-renter, but I get to keep my mental health and my marriage.
Very thought-provoking article! I’m 68. I had my kids early and went back to university in my 30’s. As they got older, my kids were the latch-key kids of the 80’s. I hated it and the guilt was overwhelming.
Please don’t feel guilty. Your kids probably turned out fine. My dad raised me all alone with no other relatives in Canada, so I did everything a latch key kid shouldn’t and should do. Life’s a journey.
I have noticed the trend as well, and some of it predates the pandemic, though I agree with Melanie's supporting arguments that the trend has intensified post-COVID.
If it is a long term trend, it is extremely positive for Canada. Women who CHOOSE this life rather than being forced / expected by men to do so are a political, economic, and social force to be reckoned with.
I think the situation we're in is the product of impersonal forces and doesn't have an obvious solution. Increased participation of women in the workforce gave women more opportunities and increased the labor pool - both good things. The consequence of that larger workforce was an increase in household income (also generally good), but also inflated the cost of a lot of things like housing because there was more money directed at a supply of stuff that hadn't changed all that much. That's produced something of a 1-way ratchet: women need to work instead of staying at home to raise kids because the extra income is necessary to pay for the lifestyle everybody expects. The need for child care hasn't changed, but now people have to pay for it directly instead of simply having one parent devote their labour towards it without direct compensation. The economics start to get bizarre: how many women find themselves needing child care because they're working, but the bulk of their income goes towards paying for child care?
I have a very smart friend who suspects that once women in large numbers began to enter the workforce, companies subsequently increased prices because they could. Once a luxury, two salaries has now become the bare minimum to survive.
Anne, I respectfully disagree with your friend but offer an alternative way of thinking about the same thing.
As we have, as a society, become more wealthy [very much as a result of women's paid vs. previously unpaid labor] we look for more ways to make our lives easier. Think of eating out, prepared foods, larger homes (whether owned or rented), multiple vehicles, cars with more features, cell phones, computers, etc., etc.
You may say that none (or few) of those things apply to you but I - in my seventies - think about how things were when I was growing up. They weren't necessarily better (also, not necessarily worse, either) but they were cheaper as we simply existed without many of the things that we now take for granted.
My point is that we have materially traded up and that has given us materially more but at a materially cost of living to have that more. That is, nothing comes for free.
I am a retired accountant and I saw a great number of businesses in my working life and I do not think that companies are making "more" in the sense of a greater per cent profit but that they are making "more" in the sense that we want more so they make the same per cent profit but on greater sales. Put differently, as a society we simply want more so it cost more; if we would accept the same standard of living as in the fifties, sixties, seventies then we would be banking a whole lot of money left over that would otherwise be spent but we won't accept that standard of living so our wish for the better standard ends up costing us more.
To summarize, we are the problem. Or, as Pogo (remember that comic?) said, "I have seen the enemy and he is us."
Hi Ken, I’ve heard this argument before from boomers and I’d love to hear what practical strategies you’d recommend to a millennial to “turn back the clock” on standard of living. For example, I imagine people didn’t do Christmas Jamaica vacations? ;)
Christmas Jamaica vacations? Nooooooo, I don't recall any when I was the age of Xavier or any of those kids. No Christmas vacation whatsoever. Actually, we WERE able to afford a Christmas tree; after that ......
I can offer no strategies practical or otherwise to turn back the clock. However, please note that I was trying to put perspective on the thought that the increased cost of living was the fault of greedy companies whereas I believe that there is a great deal of responsibility that must rest on the shoulders of all of us. Is that personal greed? Don't ask me; I don't know.
I would note that when I was young we had one car. When I was very young it was a 1950 Plymouth (green in color). Then, in about 1960 we got a new car, a 1950 Pontiac (blue) - yup, same model year. That car died and we then got a 1957 Ford. Our house was 912 sq ft and I had two brothers so that made five of us in that house. Cozy. Going out for a meal? I truly don't recall going out more than once, perhaps twice a year and then that only started when I was, I think, twelve.
My point is that we lived very close to the line but we managed. Today - and I am NOT criticizing people today! - folks need how many vehicles? have how many cell phones? have how many computers? and on and on. There are things on which we can cut back in many instances but, truly, in many cases these things have actually and realistically become necessities so it just isn't that easy.
One other thing that I recall from my younger days is that there wasn't such a thing as a credit card. Truly, there wasn't. Oh, people did have bills and did get credit but it wasn't like today so that was one other way in which things have changed.
All in all, it is much more complicated today than it was in my youth. Please note that I said "complicated" but I did not say "better" and I did not say "worse."
Ultimately, we might be able to describe differences somewhat correctly but you cannot turn back the clock; you can only try to learn from what was (good and not so good) so that you can try to find the best way forward for your own life.
Great question Sarah 'Turn back the clock' on standard of living.
Less eating out (we ate at restaurants a handful of times when I was a child), much much fewer clothes, no brand labels, no big birthday parties that cost a fortune (cake and ice cream, no gift bags for the guest children), smaller homes (my sister and I shared a bedroom), no redecorating when things fell out of style, fewer toys, no big holidays and less travel, no destination weddings, no Disney, less organized sports and events for kids because we just played together, I could go on. We had so much less yet life was so deeply rich. People connected, they got together - in person with no expensive charcuterie boards, we had sandwiches, coffee and desert, usually pie. It had its challenges but it beats today.
This is all true about how much more people do and spend today. It’s built into our economy, right? If we stop spending, the economy shrinks, resulting in job losses recession, etc. Aren’t we just hamsters running on the wheel?
Thank you x100 Melanie! I homeschooled my three children and when they were all grown I went and got my PhD and now have a great job. While people think I am pretty interesting now, they thought I was the MOST boring person on the planet when I was at home with my kids. People actually told me I was wasting my life and not contributing to society while I was a "SAHM"! Seriously! My kids are great and I would not return I minute of those years, even though they were financially very challenging. It was the most meaningful work I ever did. However, I really felt that I was living, politically, on the fringes during those years. People talked about "choice" but if you made the decision to stay home with your kids, you were kind of abandoned. I am glad to hear that things are changing.
I think “libertarian values” is part of the reason for the rightward swing recognized, but not all of it. Libertarian tends to equate to being pretty favourable toward capitalism, and this sort of homesteading/sahp mentality is, somewhat, a retreat from the capitalist system (still compatible with it, so not a complete rejection, but definitely a reduced engagement with it). There are other, non-libertarian sides of the right-wing imagination (which we shouldn’t reject outright as all bad, even though parts of it have definitely had evil expressions in history), and I think they are even more aligned with the homesteading sorts of projects, and are probably contributing to all this in some way as well.
Beautifully written piece.
I know enough to stay in my lane and look forward to women who contribute to The Line comment boards for their take on the situation.
If I was offered odds on the tipping point for women heading away from the left, feminist views of the world, my preference would be the overt undermining of a woman’s role in raising their children. Government mandated day care options and school boards pretending that families only have a role in their childrens education if the school board says they can are just two examples of overreach that needs correction.
You shouldn't have to stay in a lane Darcy. Your opinion is just as important as anyone else's.
I am old enough to remember how the Dower Act hung like a patriarchal relic over the heads of women. It was pretty condescending for a neighbour and I to step out of a law office while the lawyer ascertained that the neighbours wife was of sound mind and could agree to the terms of a lease of her own accord.
Thankfully, the Dower Act is history and its repeal is just but one little step forward for women’s equality. Note I said equality, not equity.
Therefore, I think that staying in one’s lane is a good strategy, but it is also important to recognize that hard fought gains for women’s rights can be chipped away by people with other agendas. I can be an ally, but people like you and Ms. Paradis will be the articulate spokeswomen.
Finally!!! I'm so relieved to read this article. As a self employed woman who had a stay at home mom, I'm thrilled to see that women are waking up to the value of working in the home. The stay at home mothers in my community growing up in the 60's and 70's were the heart of the home and community. Their value was immeasurable. Of course I also value women doctors, engineers etc. but women can enrich society equally by raising their children, learning to cook without relying on processed foods, learning to garden, sew, and teach their children. It will change neighbourhoods for the better. Women should feel free to be either a stay at home mom or work outside the home in any capacity they choose. It shouldn't be about what certain areas of society decree are right such as feminism which has denigrated stay at home moms. I'm grateful for the feminist movement that got me the vote and other things I wouldn't have had access to but I'm encouraged to see that women are now thinking for themselves and discovering that working at home is a worthy and valuable job.
Melanie, what an uplifting article. I’m an old man but I have a wife, three daughters and four grandchildren, one of them an amazing young girl. I coached girls soccer for a big chunk of my adult life. I loved your common-sense story. The greatest joy in life is not the bonus at work, it’s the family dinner.
Interesting article. I would add gender ideology as examples of what is making women feel alienated and driving them to consider homeschool and homesteading.
Children and teens are being told that they can identify as the opposite sex just by changing their name and pronouns. For some kids, this will be a phase. But for others, it will set them on a path to hormones and surgery.
Depending on where you work, the HR and EDI programs at your workplace may be insisting that any man who uses female pronouns or a female name has a right to women’s bathrooms and other private spaces. If you don’t agree, you’re cast as a transphobic bigot. Why is wearing heels and a dress enough to be classified as a woman, but having a vagina isn’t?
Women and children bear the brunt of this ideology. While all of Canada’s political parties go along with this, the Liberals and NDP are the biggest boosters.
Well said. Even though the Conservatives have been mostly quiet about this, they are most likely to act to counter the imposition of this worldview. This delusion is what ended my lifelong affiliation with left-leaning politics.
I really hope that this is true - that women are finally understanding that we’ve been sold a bag of rocks. Women haven’t attained freedom in being expected to work full time AND run a home AND raise a family AND now look after family members who are living far beyond a good quality of life, we’ve just been made SO busy and tired, we don’t even know where we are anymore and we’re not able to reach our full potential in anything we do. Don’t even get me started on the impact this has had on our relationships and our children!
As for the economic impact, an excellent compromise has always been meaningful part-time work which is largely unsupported by industry or government in this country - yet ANOTHER misuse of valuable resources!
When one of my kids was born, I did the math, and it didn't make sense to go back to work to lose most of my cheque to childcare. I also didn't WANT to go back to work - I wanted to be the one raising my kids, creating memories, instilling values and morals, helping them learn to ride a bike or patching up a skinned knee. My kids are teens now. I'm back in the work force (though still dream of being a SAHM - but really I'm not needed in that role anymore and financially need to work) BUT I hope my own kids have that choice. I guess by the standards of this article, I became a "homesteading" mom in the mid to late 2000's, ahead of the covid era. I can preserves, have a garden, knit, and homeschool. I've voted for many different parties over the years, but am solidly in that 35-54 demographic group and have full intention of voting conservative this next election. (Though I live in a current conservative riding so my vote will just make it more likely to stay that way - I don't think it will swing.)
Enjoyed this perspective. It will be interesting to see if this is truly a cultural shift or merely part of more temporary post-pandemic effects. I confess to rooting for the former. Women should be able to organize their lives in any way they think best suits them and their families. That’s the kind of freedom we’ve fought for and governments shouldn’t be getting in the way of that.
Very interesting article. I'm not sure it's a partisan issue. The truth is that our Gouvernments have mismanaged our collective wealth to the extent that our social programs are unsustainable. While businesses cry about the lack of cheap labour so they can make more grommets to export, the truth is that Gouvernments believe that immigrants are the only way to save these programs.
So for every Woman who chooses to leave the workforce, someone will have to replace them.
Very sad state of affairs for one of the wealthiest countries in the World.
This article describes my choices and those of many women I know. RNs, teachers, Masters degrees and more. And I’m the only one without my own chickens! The only thing I wish you’d said Melanie is that this makes me a perma-renter, but I get to keep my mental health and my marriage.
Very thought-provoking article! I’m 68. I had my kids early and went back to university in my 30’s. As they got older, my kids were the latch-key kids of the 80’s. I hated it and the guilt was overwhelming.
Please don’t feel guilty. Your kids probably turned out fine. My dad raised me all alone with no other relatives in Canada, so I did everything a latch key kid shouldn’t and should do. Life’s a journey.
Excellent column.
I have noticed the trend as well, and some of it predates the pandemic, though I agree with Melanie's supporting arguments that the trend has intensified post-COVID.
If it is a long term trend, it is extremely positive for Canada. Women who CHOOSE this life rather than being forced / expected by men to do so are a political, economic, and social force to be reckoned with.
This is a very interesting read. Thank you.
I think the situation we're in is the product of impersonal forces and doesn't have an obvious solution. Increased participation of women in the workforce gave women more opportunities and increased the labor pool - both good things. The consequence of that larger workforce was an increase in household income (also generally good), but also inflated the cost of a lot of things like housing because there was more money directed at a supply of stuff that hadn't changed all that much. That's produced something of a 1-way ratchet: women need to work instead of staying at home to raise kids because the extra income is necessary to pay for the lifestyle everybody expects. The need for child care hasn't changed, but now people have to pay for it directly instead of simply having one parent devote their labour towards it without direct compensation. The economics start to get bizarre: how many women find themselves needing child care because they're working, but the bulk of their income goes towards paying for child care?
I have a very smart friend who suspects that once women in large numbers began to enter the workforce, companies subsequently increased prices because they could. Once a luxury, two salaries has now become the bare minimum to survive.
Anne, I respectfully disagree with your friend but offer an alternative way of thinking about the same thing.
As we have, as a society, become more wealthy [very much as a result of women's paid vs. previously unpaid labor] we look for more ways to make our lives easier. Think of eating out, prepared foods, larger homes (whether owned or rented), multiple vehicles, cars with more features, cell phones, computers, etc., etc.
You may say that none (or few) of those things apply to you but I - in my seventies - think about how things were when I was growing up. They weren't necessarily better (also, not necessarily worse, either) but they were cheaper as we simply existed without many of the things that we now take for granted.
My point is that we have materially traded up and that has given us materially more but at a materially cost of living to have that more. That is, nothing comes for free.
I am a retired accountant and I saw a great number of businesses in my working life and I do not think that companies are making "more" in the sense of a greater per cent profit but that they are making "more" in the sense that we want more so they make the same per cent profit but on greater sales. Put differently, as a society we simply want more so it cost more; if we would accept the same standard of living as in the fifties, sixties, seventies then we would be banking a whole lot of money left over that would otherwise be spent but we won't accept that standard of living so our wish for the better standard ends up costing us more.
To summarize, we are the problem. Or, as Pogo (remember that comic?) said, "I have seen the enemy and he is us."
Hi Ken, I’ve heard this argument before from boomers and I’d love to hear what practical strategies you’d recommend to a millennial to “turn back the clock” on standard of living. For example, I imagine people didn’t do Christmas Jamaica vacations? ;)
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Christmas Jamaica vacations? Nooooooo, I don't recall any when I was the age of Xavier or any of those kids. No Christmas vacation whatsoever. Actually, we WERE able to afford a Christmas tree; after that ......
I can offer no strategies practical or otherwise to turn back the clock. However, please note that I was trying to put perspective on the thought that the increased cost of living was the fault of greedy companies whereas I believe that there is a great deal of responsibility that must rest on the shoulders of all of us. Is that personal greed? Don't ask me; I don't know.
I would note that when I was young we had one car. When I was very young it was a 1950 Plymouth (green in color). Then, in about 1960 we got a new car, a 1950 Pontiac (blue) - yup, same model year. That car died and we then got a 1957 Ford. Our house was 912 sq ft and I had two brothers so that made five of us in that house. Cozy. Going out for a meal? I truly don't recall going out more than once, perhaps twice a year and then that only started when I was, I think, twelve.
My point is that we lived very close to the line but we managed. Today - and I am NOT criticizing people today! - folks need how many vehicles? have how many cell phones? have how many computers? and on and on. There are things on which we can cut back in many instances but, truly, in many cases these things have actually and realistically become necessities so it just isn't that easy.
One other thing that I recall from my younger days is that there wasn't such a thing as a credit card. Truly, there wasn't. Oh, people did have bills and did get credit but it wasn't like today so that was one other way in which things have changed.
All in all, it is much more complicated today than it was in my youth. Please note that I said "complicated" but I did not say "better" and I did not say "worse."
Ultimately, we might be able to describe differences somewhat correctly but you cannot turn back the clock; you can only try to learn from what was (good and not so good) so that you can try to find the best way forward for your own life.
Great question Sarah 'Turn back the clock' on standard of living.
Less eating out (we ate at restaurants a handful of times when I was a child), much much fewer clothes, no brand labels, no big birthday parties that cost a fortune (cake and ice cream, no gift bags for the guest children), smaller homes (my sister and I shared a bedroom), no redecorating when things fell out of style, fewer toys, no big holidays and less travel, no destination weddings, no Disney, less organized sports and events for kids because we just played together, I could go on. We had so much less yet life was so deeply rich. People connected, they got together - in person with no expensive charcuterie boards, we had sandwiches, coffee and desert, usually pie. It had its challenges but it beats today.
This is all true about how much more people do and spend today. It’s built into our economy, right? If we stop spending, the economy shrinks, resulting in job losses recession, etc. Aren’t we just hamsters running on the wheel?
No doubt. Probably several factors for the rise in cost of living as women began bringing home money!
Did the proverbial we commoditize nearly everything, maybe even feminism, and dehumanized society in the process?
Thank you x100 Melanie! I homeschooled my three children and when they were all grown I went and got my PhD and now have a great job. While people think I am pretty interesting now, they thought I was the MOST boring person on the planet when I was at home with my kids. People actually told me I was wasting my life and not contributing to society while I was a "SAHM"! Seriously! My kids are great and I would not return I minute of those years, even though they were financially very challenging. It was the most meaningful work I ever did. However, I really felt that I was living, politically, on the fringes during those years. People talked about "choice" but if you made the decision to stay home with your kids, you were kind of abandoned. I am glad to hear that things are changing.
I think “libertarian values” is part of the reason for the rightward swing recognized, but not all of it. Libertarian tends to equate to being pretty favourable toward capitalism, and this sort of homesteading/sahp mentality is, somewhat, a retreat from the capitalist system (still compatible with it, so not a complete rejection, but definitely a reduced engagement with it). There are other, non-libertarian sides of the right-wing imagination (which we shouldn’t reject outright as all bad, even though parts of it have definitely had evil expressions in history), and I think they are even more aligned with the homesteading sorts of projects, and are probably contributing to all this in some way as well.
There is SO much more to unpack here, this piece just scratches the surface. I hope others start thinking and writing about this too!
Agreed! Thanks for such a thoughtful piece
Amen. Well written.