Can you be a feminist housewife?

yes norman,your reasons for dislike sahm would dissatisfy me too. well done with your retraining

I wasn't accusing anyone of flaming but multiple restatements of one's own situation does lead to a flaming thread.

pam, IMO:

If you never had income, you are still contributing work that isn't financially valued very much at all - if you care for your own children, that is of course cheaper than paying someone else to do it. But in the current climate, many SAHPs gave up big salaries - lots of people can't afford to be SAHPs.

Lost potential - no, I don't know how you value it either! But does that mean it shouldn't be acknowledged?

Lost payment - sorry, run that past me again? How do you mean, who ensures payment?

Sorry if that is a bit of a useless reply.

I have been a SAHM, on and off, for 7 years (three kids) and am slowly getting back to part time work while I retrain (my old industry is dying on its arse.)

The major thing I found/find about being a SAHM is the lack of agency I have as an individual. I have to ask DP if we can afford this or that, ask him before I have a haircut (He is self employed so knows what money is pending etc) and as somneone who previously earned a decent salary it was a tough adjustment and one that I am still unhappy with.

But being a SAHM gave me space and time to think about a change of career, it gave me a chance to evaluate my skills and consider how to reapply them. It made me happy in that I could be outdoors enjoying sunbshine and fresh air, not hunched in front of a computer in a bunker-like office.

If I could do it again, I would have tried to maintain work, even shared childcare with DP as I think losing that part of my identity was a pretty high price to pay

"It doesn't make it equal for women as a group to disregard the value of their unpaid labour."

Ok how do society judge the value of that labour?

Lost income - what if you have never had income?
Lost potential - how do you measure that across the spectrum?
Hourly rate (nursey fees, cheff, cleaner) - who ensures payment?

Who protects women from not being valued?

Or do we empower women to set themselves up so they protect their status?

Don't understand what's Machiavellian either.

I got distracted by DH and ended up talking to him.

Anyway, I agree that being happy with your own personal situation is important. I think the reason to carry on the discussion past that, though, is because we all contribute to constructing the market forces, so we're all a little bit responsible for the way childcare is valued in our society. That thought won't keep me (or anyone else I imagine) up at nights, but IMO it isn't a trivial thing to think about.

popbiscuit,youre being all hidden message weird speak
i have not chosen.oh if you say so.is this a human condition fatalistic thing.all cogs in the wheel no choice?

Machiavellian is your word of the day

Do you understand the meaning of Machiavellian?

what on earth,thats very machivellian

I'm not flaming anyone.

I am happy, personally with my situation. I have weighed-up the pros and the cons and have decided that this is what I want for now. BUT it doesn't make it equal. And feminism isn't just about whether we are happy in our own little worlds.

You can be a SAHM and have "very good values" and "work ethos". SM it doesn't sound to me like you've chosen anything. Now I really understand where you are coming from.

I'm not flaming. I'm nosey curious.

SM - I could say the same - I value family and I want to be a positive role model - I've just chosen a different way.

Your talking about your own personal choices though. Which is fine. If you are happy with your set up. Cool.

It doesn't make it equal for women as a group to disregard the value of their unpaid labour.

This really can't be a flame war at all! There is no right or wrong if you are happy with your situation. We all seem to be happy?

thats your subjective opinion.we value and contribute to our family.just because that doesnt manifest as me being housewife,or not sahp doesnt mean it has no or decreased value. we can pay someone else to do tasks whilst we both work

it is exactly because i value family and what i do that i want to be a positive role model. and demonstrate working and not solely to be housewife. my parents both worked ft.they imbued us with very good values and work ethos

my ability to earn means i can chose lifestyle,job and maintain career.if i did not earn id be dependent and tied to dp career path for everything.

Well, I am dependent on DH's salary to maintain my lifestyle. I work FT. I have a good salary. I probably could just about afford to live in this house on my salary, but I certainly wouldn't be able to afford a holiday, weekends away or to shop where I do without his contribution. And indeed, didn't when we only had his salary coming in.

Exactly Linden - talk about and agree - that's the key.

The interesting question for me revolves (as per OPs original post) around feminist principles. If you feel your status is valued and equitable then there is no compromise of feminist beliefs.

We talk about our independent savings together and what we are doing with them - for example we both have a wee nest egg so we are currently deciding to punt it into the mortgage - that then becomes a joint asset - split as defined in the deeds. So the situation isn't as closed as it may sound. But by law, if teh worst happened I know I'll be all right and that is very important to me.

High others

High-lighted

Hey, even in a childless relationship where both partners work out of the home this is an issue. It just is often 'high other's' when a parent stays at home and or there are children involved.

Because in your situation there is no value attached to the work and labour done in bearing children (risking your well being etc, etc) and taking time our (even if just a short while). financially your situation maintains your independence. But as it doesn't recognise the above it can't be equal

Unless your work and partner's work is perfectly evenly spread in and out of the home and you each have exactly the same 'spending money' at the end I Don't think it is particularly equal either (whether or not you or he ends up with more)

most def in a mutual and supportive family relationship
we have always done both separate and joint,even pre-kids.except pre-kids no childcare expenses for example

we have a shared life and children,not a co-dependency
and if he upped and off id be ok
we agree things as a couple.no one has the dominant hand or final say as one would see in trad housewife set up for example.

It's one of those things that couples really have to consider how it will work for them before they have children I suppose? Someone further up the thread mentioned their relationship being a team effort? I know my DH sees his salary as family money and always has - just as I see any money in my name as family money too?