Mumsnet Talk

YY NCG.

MmB, just provide me with an explanation of how childcare can be achieved without using one of my above options, and what should be done if there are no willing relatives and paid childcare is unaffordable for the couple.

Full time childcare for two DC would cost me and DH something like £29k p.a. from taxed income. That's a decently paid job.

Childcare is prohibitively expensive in the UK. Also, I'd rather bring up my own children than give that responsibility to someone I don't know.

One of the more interesting strands of feminism I have discovered recently is the group who don't like and/or don't want children. Is that where you are coming from, MmB?

Of course you can be a SAHM and a feminist. My partner is female too so although we made that decision for the same reasons as other posters here, I'm not relying on a man at all. Not really an answer for everyone, I know

Just this weekend dp had quite a shirty exchange with her dm. Christmas presents arrived from her brother's family abroad, and horror of horrors, from the handwriting dm could tell that db and not his wife had wrapped and posted them. This was evidence that his wife was not looking after him properly. The discussion about this was rather heated.

This thread is turning into a playground clique feeling attacked and fighting back. However, a coherent logical explanation hasn't been given to me so far.

Maybe that explains why feminism as a movement carries the seeds of its own failure with it.

MmB, you are right inasmuch as you should practice the principles that you preach. The problem occurs when those principles are so rigid as to exclude the majority of the people that they are meant to be helping.

I do agree with your last statement too, with one caveat - strident feminism is doomed because, like a religion, it has no room for discussion or disagreement. Like George W said, if you are not with us, you are against us. And we all know what a smart cookie he was!

What is incoherent or illogical about pointing out the economic cost of childcare?

I am a feminist. I am currently a SAHM. It is short sighted to say that I am 'dependent on my husband for survival' IMO. In fact, DH and I were having a conversation last night about how I needed life insurance of a level pretty similar to his - because if I died, buying in those services so he could continue to work. Or indeed to fund him working less.

Also, my status has not always been the case. And will not always be the case. WE have both worked, worked part time, etc. At this point in time DH is contributing to the family financially and I am contributing in childcare and other home aspects.

I think the SAHM thing is a bit of a red herring. Somebody has to raise children and there are good arguments for it being the child's parent.

The real issue is why women are still earning less than men, meaning it is almost always women who stop work. And also that working practices just don't support families with children. It would be good if both parents could work flexibly to fit in with other commitments, but well paid jobs usually demand full time hours, meaning it comes down to a choice of work or don't work.

Good point Galaxy about the economic value of childcare. Nannies earn a reasonable salary. Having been a nanny I have to say it is pretty demeaning to have that work dismissed by people who feel childcare is a waste of their time and talents.

I absolutely agree that you can be a SAHM and a feminist. Someone needs to take care of children.

Feminism is the belief that women and men should be allowed equal opportunities. I chose to be SAHM for a couple of years and was very glad to do so. In that time I focused on my child and on myself - my academic and political passions.

Now, DH is a SAHD. Nothing has changed philosophically. Just I got a job when he lost his.

Sometimes the extreme view muddies the water and detracts from the cause. It does no-one, lest of all the general feminist movement, any favours if it is perceived as a stringent doctrine. Opportunity and choice.

>>Childcare is prohibitively expensive in the UK. Also, I'd rather bring up my own children than give that responsibility to someone I don't know.<<

I think to be able to bring up your own children, you do have to rely on someone else financially, or have a substantial private income, so this is not an option for very many people. I do hope, NCG, that you share the care 50/50 with the mother of your children, or you are a SAHD, if you want to make statements like that.

To the question of whether you can be a SAHM and a feminist, of course you can. One of the founding tenets of feminism was maternalism, which was advocating and fighting for the recognition and value of women's social role as mothers. The fact that being a SAHM makes you financially dependent on a man is a reflection of how society is organised, not the intrinsic value of the role. It is perfectly feminist to argue that the circumstances of women's lives are different from men's (in so far as women have children).

Also, the economy would not run if it was not for the unpaid hours which carers (mainly women) put in, many men could not advice professionally if they did not have a woman at home looking after the children etc. Somebody needs to do it. The feminist point is not to question the task or the role, but to question its lack of value and why it is usually women who do it (the two points being linked).

When they were first born, my wife stayed at home to look after our kids. It was an economic decision. I was more highly qualified than her, and earned more money. If that had been reversed, I would have stayed at home. I did my share whenever possible - feeding, changing, being puked on - I would not have missed a second of it. They were our children, not hers, and she is a fantastic parent. I hope she thinks the same of me. Looking down on people because they decide to stay at home and bring up their own children is ridiculous.

My feminist views haven't changed much in 40 years. I'm now 54, but I find myself alone these days among friends. I'm the only person I know who stuck to it and didn't change her name. I work with colleagues whose views are from the dark ages and I have to be very diplomatic.
DH has always supported my choices but with the DCs his tendency to play devil's advocate in every discussion has, I think, led them to misunderstand some of his opinions.
DS2 at 14 is also at the age where he likes to promote the opposite opinion to that which he perceives to be mine. Some of the things he says I am until I see a cheeky grin and realise he has been trying to provoke.

Choices aren't necessarily feminist just because a woman makes them! It's a big mistake to confuse feminism with choice. That's the problem these days.

Can you be a feminist lap dancer? To me, that can't be possible.
Can you be a feminist escort? No way.

Feminism is about choice but only those choices that promote real equality, and independence of thought and action for women. Being stuck at home for years, depending on the income a male brings home is not a feminist choice, it's a big kick backwards to feminism.

It's not about "feeling equal", it's about doing the numbers, like all men do at the end of the day.

I'm all for women choosing, but I do have an issue with those women who make anti feminist choices and call themselves feminists because it's "a choice made by a woman".

If being stuck at home for years was such a great job, there would be men demonstrating outside Westminster to do it. The reality is that most of them avoid it like the plague, even those who earn a lot less than their wives. So don't tell me it's always a financial choice.

The issue of expensive childcare should definitely be tackled and that is certainly something feminism is committed to doing.

I agree with you about choice feminism. I agree that societal pressures often result in the woman being the one who stays home. Issues like women's lack of pension provision because of years out of the workforce or derailed careers are big issues.

I don't agree that staying home for some period is inherently unfeminist and I would consider that you are taking a very materialistic view of family life. My DH doesn't 'do the numbers' at the end of the month. It isn't 'his' money. He hasn't 'earned' it. We as a family have earned it (though as I mentioned above, I do recognise the pension issue).

By your reckoning one could be a feminist working in a nursery as a carer, but not staying at home with one's own child. Because one creates material wealth. I am sorry, but I think that is misguided and, quite frankly, bollocks.

If lap dancing or escorting was eradicated, the world wouldn't stop.

It's not an option to eradicate childcare.

I could not have earned the money I did if my wife had not stayed at home to bring up our children. Therefore, she earned it too. So she wasn't 'kept' - she did as much as me to earn that salary. It's ironic that you place so much emphasis on material earnings, when this is one of the biggest flaws within the so-called patriarchal system you hate.

Namechage, you're a vivid example that the kind of men feminist forums attract are never the brightest in the pack.

I know why that is, because the brightest ones are in the City, sitting in their big cat chairs, earning big money to suppor their feminist wives at home. Making the whole capitalist machinery move on and on.

>>Feminism is about choice but only those choices that promote real equality, and independence of thought and action for women. Being stuck at home for years, depending on the income a male brings home is not a feminist choice, it's a big kick backwards to feminism.<<

that misses the point, though, someone needs to have children, someone needs to look after children, and for biological reasons, it is women who take a career break of however long, even if only a Xenia like 2 weeks, to have children. That break and what women do in that break, have and look after children, should be valued.

It is inherently unfeminist, I would have thought, to suggest that women should erase all difference with men to be seen as equal, rather than looking at what both sexes can do to minimise the financial imbalance which having children causes, whether that is through a proper child allowance system or by more men taking on more roles at home.

NCG, I think my point was that it is unhelpful to make statements about not wanting children to be brought up by 'strangers' when many women, and indeed men, do not have a choice if they wish to remain solvent.

Insults are the last resort of someone who has lost an argument. You carry on alienating women all around you. See how far that gets your cause.

Insulting the intelligence of someone just because they disagree with you. That's constructive

Wow, MmB. Did you just say that only men who are not the brightest in the pack are on feminist forums? Is that a point about forums or about feminism that you are trying to make?

>>I know why that is, because the brightest ones are in the City, sitting in their big cat chairs, earning big money to suppor their feminist wives at home. Making the whole capitalist machinery move on and on.<<

Whereas both parents working slows it down?? That makes no sense. Both parents in the City, or wherever, capitulates to capitalism even more, unless they are on a job share.