If I'm happy with being a SAHM, is it only because I've still got the wool pulled over my eyes with regards to inequality?

[AgentZigzag]

And if I were to take a more critical look at how being in an unequal economic relationship with my DH affects me in reality (like limiting the options I have), I'd be less happy with the choices I've made?

[LowFlyingBirds]

How are you in an unequal economic relationship?
Sahm perfectly compatible with feminism.
In fact feminists tend to shout loudest about the value of the role, ime.
Of course if you are sahm when youd rathe not be but feel pressured into it as you are the female parent then yes that is a feminist issue.

[VolkswagenBeetle]

As LowFlyingBirds said how are you in an unequal economic relationship?

I'm a SAHM (and have been for 11 years), but my relationship is very equal. DH is a low earner and if I was to go back to work I'd be on the same money he is on. I'm also the one who deals with all the finances.

[AnyFucker]

SAHM and Feminism are not diametrically opposed

Do you have an equal say in what family money is spent on ?

Does it go into a joint pot ?

Do you have equal leisure time ?

Are you appreciated for what you bring to the family dynamic ?

Ar you seen as lesser (by your H) for not earning outside of the home ?

if your H fucked off with his secretary (or whoever) would you be Up Shit Creek ?

have you a pension provision, and wills made up in your favour ?

it's not aa straightforward as you seem to think

[AgentZigzag]

Thanks for your answers, it's taken me a while to squash what I've been wondering for a while into to something less likely to get me flamed that's not too complicated

I don't bring in as much cash as DH does to the family pot, but I know we mutually exchange what I do for the family for a share of DHs wages.

I keep track of how much (joint) cash we have, I feel appreciated and never at a disadvantage by DH for not doing paid work, I have a decent share of leisure time.

Neither of us have pensions/wills, if DH fucked off I'd be up shit creek but know I'd survive.

I think what might be the crux of it is (and this isn't a significant comment on what I think of our relationship, I'm not looking for reasons not to be happy or anything) that do I only think I'm content with it because I've been conditioned to accept it as the status quo?

Are the choices women make that result in them being in a vulnerable and dependent position as freely made as they'd like to think them to be?

[LowFlyingBirds]

Oh, i get what you're asking a bit more now.
Really good question, will think on...

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

I guess nobody's choices are freely made - both men and women. We are all socialised into behaving in certain ways and have massive influences on us everyday e.g. from media that affect and influence the decisions we make. We can question this, which helps us to ensure that we are making decisions about our lives and the lives of our DCs for the right reasons. But I don't think we can ever make truly free choices.

In terms of your life I would just ask yourself if you are happy with it and if there is anything you would want to change or improve. Trust your gut/heart on this one. A good sign is if you envy other people for something as that usually reflects a sign of something you would like to change.

But if you are genuinely happy with your choice, then don't worry about it. All we can do as individuals is try to be as in touch with our authentic feelings as possible and make decisions on the basis of these

[AliceHurled]

No choices are freely made. No one lives in a vacuum. We all live in a society that shapes what choices are available, how we feel about those choices and how we are judged for those choices. (This is everyone, and about everything)

Society sets up being a SAHM as a problematic one, for things like economic inequality, that unpaid labour is not valued etc. Society does that. That isn't an innate characteristic of being a SAHM.

So I wouldn't say its about the wool being pulled over your eyes. It's more (if I stretch that to its limit) about there being wool all over the place, all over everyone's eyes. And unless we all lived as hermits that wool would always be there. Although the wool could be changed.

We all do what we need to to get by in a world that we didn't design.

[SuchProspects]

There are lots of things women are conditioned to accept more that would seem to make us more likely to accept he SAHM role than men. We tend to be expected to be more trusting, more team player, more cooperative, more dependent, more locally focused, more passive and less ambitious. All these things help to make us less anxious about being in a vulnerable position and more accepting that it is a price worth paying for the benefits to the family unit.

I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with the actions and work involved with being a SAHM, or the benefits to the family (except perhaps for the lack of engagement in leadership) but the vulnerability of women who do this in our society is a cause for concern. And that is to do with our legal and social institutions that place little value on bringing up children, and have failed to develop sufficient safeguards (even removed some) for a long standing division of labour. It isn't simply a natural division of power.

[SuchProspects]

x-post with Alice

[AnyFucker]

child care costs in many families prevent the lowest wage earner (often the woman) from going out to work

thus, her career suffers and if hubby bogs off a few years later with Miss Pert Buttocks, then that's a problem as she can't support herself. Often making women trapped in unhappy relationships, if he deigns to stay

child care costs are a massive Feminist issue

[Gay40]

One way to look at it is to think: If my husband buggered off today, leaving us all to get on with it, how easy would it be to just get on with life practically (ignoring the missing him issues). If you rely on him for everything, like sorting stuff out, then you are not in a position of equality. If all you'd have to do would be to live on less money, then you are probably in a state of equality.

[AnyFucker]

true, Gay, it's not just about money but that is a big part of it

[Gay40]

Usually the money arrangements give a good indicator to the rest of the relationship, though.
For example, people not knowing who insures their car or how much it costs, "because my husband does all that". Massive inequality red flag, and a massive learning curve when the thing your husband decides to do is the secretary.

[AnyFucker]

or to be fair... lose his job, become ill or die

[AliceHurled]

I don't think it's as simple as childcare costs impacting on the lowest earner. I'm pregnant. I earn twice what my husband does. I am asked what I'll do about work. He's told he needs to make sure he gets a good job. No one correlates this to what either of us earn. For me this just makes me want to do it differently even more, but only cos I've always liked to go against the grain. But that's me, society is nonetheless communicating to me that I should give up my job.

So whilst I agree childcare is a really big feminist issue, it's not as simple as if there were more and it were cheaper the problems would be solved, as simple economics would dictate it. It isn't economics that are coming into play, it's assumptions about gender roles.

[tribpot]

do I only think I'm content with it because I've been conditioned to accept it as the status quo?

But it isn't the status quo, in terms of the only way in which two parents choose to organise their work and life commitments to create a solution which works best for them for the period of time whilst their children are young (or young-ish, such as teens). You know that there are choices and hopefully when you made yours you weighed up all the factors and are happy with the solution you have - you certainly sound as if you are.

Where the 'conditioning' is more endemic in my view is that flexible working or career breaks are perceived only really to be options available to women. I have never known a man be asked if he will be coming back to work part-time after the birth of his child, or how he will 'juggle' responsibilities. I know of a couple at work where both are on the same salary and the one who in my view is considerably more competent and with the potential to go all the way (the woman) is the one who has dropped to three days a week. Why could they not both go to 4? Same salary, same amount of time for their dc to be with a parent, potentially actually a better scenario because they would have one full day at home with each. They haven't done it, I suspect at least partly because he feels it would damage his career track. (We actually have quite a number of men working part-time in my organisation to balance family obligations, but their careers are effectively stalled as a result. Some of them at least have made the decision to go part-time because their careers were already stalled).

That said, you do have to be realistic that staying at home leaves you in a disadvantaged position in terms of your career potential when you return to the workplace and if your DH's wage disappears, whether through his departure with Miss Pert Buttocks, ill-health or the loss of his job. If you assess the risks and are happy with your risk assessment, that's fine. Just assuming it'll never change is not very realistic, even if you have every reason to believe your DH is immune to the charms of Miss Pert Buttocks, which I'm sure he is (esp as she's a figment of AF's imagination ).

So, it's certainly not as simple as "the choice is yours", and AF and others are quite right, that the cost of childcare pushes lower earners into making a short-term, economic decisions that could have profound consequences for them in the long term. Equally I think in more enlightened countries in Europe where childcare is cheaper, it is seen as rather bizarre to stay at home. Therefore in my manifesto for when I take over both the country and the EU I would want:

• cheap, affordable childcare
  
• the option for all parents (indeed all workers) to take a period of time out or reduce their hours without this being seen as adopting a "part-time" attitude to their careers
  
• much more support for men to make non-traditional choices (and at the very least the 'nudge' they already get in Sweden by being mandated to take 3 of the months of parental leave themselves)
  
• childcare recognised as a feminist issue not just because it mainly affects women (the reporting in the mainstream media is a bloody disgrace) but as an issue affecting parents
  
• free chocolate for all.
  

I just put that last one in as a guaranteed vote-winner. What I haven't yet worked out how to do is the bigger problem seen frequently on the Relationships board where the working parent devalues the stay-at-home parent's contribution to the family because it can't directly be measured economically. I had a rather horrible conversation this week with friends (a different married couple) where the wife was basically asking for the money for something (admittedly it was a Mac OS upgrade not food or anything!) and the husband was like: nah, I've got the fancy Mac, you're alright on the older one. I didn't like that at all. So I add to my manifesto: free choice on Mac operating systems and other things as well.

[AnyFucker]

very true, Alice

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

I vote for Tribot

[Gay40]

I don't want this to turn into a man-hating thread, because it certainly isn't, but when you read statements like "My husband can only go to work and do his job if I stay at home" you think "Ffs love, wake up to yourself, will you"

[AliceHurled]

I don't think that Gay40. I would level the criticism at a society structured in a way that creates these situations. I am in a profession where if I have children and don't have a SAHP I will not reach the top of it. It is appalling that my field operates like this. If my partner did stay at home so I could so this, I wouldn't think he was a sucker.

[Gay40]

Tribpot for Prime Minister.

[Gay40]

No, not a sucker at all. My point was that many SAHPs make themselves quite disempowered by the choices they make with no concept of Plan B or a contingency plan. Maybe I was raised by a bunch of feminists but they always said to me "Look after yourself, and always make sure you'd be OK on your own." By this they didn't mean eschew men, or not be in a happy relationship, or not be a SAHP, but always have the means to be self-sufficient, emotionally, practically, financially.

[IslaValargeone]

Gay, do you think that the situation you have described in your 12.41 post really doesn't exist? Genuine question, not being arsey.

[AliceHurled]

Sure Gay40, this is my approach too. But society will judge me for it. I will face the 'who is looking after your baby?' comments. I will face the articles that discuss what is wrong with my choices. Just like the SAHM will face the equivalent comments. But I don't locate the problem with that with me, or with the SAHM.

[AgentZigzag]

If the indicators of being in a more equal position are that I don't rely on him to manage our lives, then I'm probably not in too bad a situation.

I'm dependent on him, but self-sufficient in my head.

Could be because I don't find it easy to trust anyone other people, could be because both of us are lazy pretty laid back when it comes to who does what.

What you seem to be saying is that it's usually only if the woman's in a situation where her DP is of the nature to take advantage of her vulnerable/dependent position (and she lets him?), that the inequality becomes a problem?

(I'm starting to actively dislike Miss Pert Buttocks, even though I know I'm wrong to do that bet she wears leggings/short t shirt combos and looks great )