Can you be a feminist housewife?

Thinking this through in general terms my drive for independance and therefore our financial set up is filling the gap that "society" would leave me exposed to.

I absolutely agree women who take a particular role (homemaker, sahm) are disadvantaged if left high and dry. Slow steps are being taken to change that - too small and too slow.

So from a personal (feminist) stand point what is best to do?

Work your nads off and become financially independent?
Or trust in your OH?

I make no judgement on what choice people want to make - I just know mine which was shaped by having nothing as I was growing up.

Yup, it goes beyond personal preferences.

I stand by the fact that women are financially disadvantaged by having children. I don't consider particularly fair to pander to that in personal relationships - but as in so much else each to their own.

you are over personalising.no one asked you back down
nor would anyone expect you to do so
on basis of how a stranger organises her finances
now you mind find mn less adversarial if you dont conceive as wont back down

Actually, it is not my opinion [that women are disadvantaged] it is a fact.

i dont know what you think youre trying to convince me of sal
i never have,and dont intend joint money
simple as that
and no amount of construction about entitlement cuts it for me

No I'm not. You are being offensive and fair enough, you like that persona. But I won't back down on my opinion that women (as a group) are financially disadvantaged by having children and that their partners should share that burden

Whether you like it or not, you may be maintaining your independence by saving your own salary but by not contributing to the loss your partner has only benefitted both financially and in having you provide a child for the family while you had to take the financial hit while working to save for your independence.

In my situation he is making good the essentials - that's where I agree. But if I am a frivalous spendthrift then I would never expect another to fill that gap.

He would never dare make a comment about what I spend my money on during my paid days but I would never dare expect him to pay for luxuries I can very easily do without when I'm on AML. Maybe this is personal to us - he never treats himself I have to force him to spend on himself. He isn't tight he just has basic needs (no not that way!).

Our savings are our own, we do not save together. When The Boy is here though we are opening a joint savings account for his future.

Any big expenses we have now (new kitchen next week) we go halves having agreed a budget and punt it to the house account.

We have never argued about money in our lives together, erm ok the calculation of the equity stakes in the house deeds were a lengthy discussion.

I don't know vif this is feminism in practice as I am very gender neutral as I previously posted.

look if youre happy to dip into someone else wages- fine
im not
i never have and hope i never will
i would feel compromised,and yes it would feel like pin money.and no i dont expect anyone else to feel same.but no amount of constructing a reason why i can dip into his wages doesn't cut it for me

if it suits you,and your circumstance,thats v good
arranged my circumstances and saved that i wouldn't have to do the joint money thing.to me its a fundamental attitudinal belief i value

But he's dependent on you SM if he wants a child it's joint enterprise, each contributes.

Is that the bit you don't get?

you are indulging in hyperbole.insulting society and women.lol
lol,gosh not wanting to be dependent upon someone else causes that much ire
well i never

'wee wifey pin money?' How ridiculous SM. It's 50% of whatever's left over at the end of the month. Equitable distribution of work , leisure, money, of course it's possible to be a feminist housewife if you follow that model.

if you want to take offence,go ahead.i have no intention of raiding my dp account because im up the duff. and no i dont feel need to receive money from him.i like to maintain independence. to me it would be pin money. i would feel beholden and dont want that

Not just personally but to all women who do not work in paid employment. As Lenin sId above, there aren't enough jobs for all the adults in this contry, no matter how you look at it. So it is to societies benefit that some are out of the job Market, whether that be willingly nor unwillingly.

By dismissing women being supported financially by their partners or society you are further devaluing their input into the family AND society.

I want a large apple turnover now

Seriously it's no point arguing the toss over one way of financial mgt and another - it's what feels right for you and your family that counts.

Sorry for calling it bollox Pam, if it works for you then great.
My point is that if you as a couple are having a baby, then you as a couple should should bear the financial hit, not you as an individual. Saving for a period of reduced income is a good idea, but both of you should do it.

And I disagree about the 'penalised' point - if you are soon not earning because you are having a baby - and you are the one sacrificing your weekly magazine, say, so you can have it when you are off work, and your husband isn't, how is that not a penalty? (Albeit a trivial one compared to no pension, but yswim)

I don't see it like that at all SM and actually find your characterisation if joint financial responsibility very insulting.

i understand and share your ethos pam

i dont want an our money.its an anathema to me to be dependent like that.taking wee wifey pin money.no thanks

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't feel a financial loss as I have saved to cover the period for my personal spending. I know this is very different to SAHM as it is for a defined period of time - if all goes well.

This thread was about can you be at home supported and still be a feminist. I think you can but for me to feel like me and be happy with my choice then I need to preserve independence.

Just to be clear - my savings only cover what I want to spend - not what I have to spend. For example maternity pads = joint account, large apple turnover = my account. :)

I take the the opposite tack SM, he's relying on me to have the baby if I want money to fritter down the pub, no not allowed shops then I'll take half of what's left at the end of the month. No way would I deprive myself, while undertaking a significant 'hit' for the team. It works both ways. We can either afford the basics+ treats (including free time) or we can't, regardless of which account the money first bounced into.

i saved and had adequate mat pay.i wouldnt want a shared pool of money.i have never been dependent upon dp and certainly wouldn't want to be.the point of savings is a buffer when you need them- and spend your savings as you wish

pam plan sounds v sensible to me

I do see how that set up gives you independence Pam and I'm not knocking that. I just don't think it is right. You staying home (even just temporarily on ML) is of benefit to the whole family, regardless of marital status, and therefore the financial burden of the loss of income should be borne equally between you.

I want to preserve my independence - don't think I like that being classed as bollox. OH will contribute by doing his half of parenting as he does his half of house work now.

I don't feel penalised by using my savings on me - I don't even understand why anyone would?

It feels counter to feminist feelings to victimise yourself as an injured party because you are having and raising a child. The word penalised makes it sound like a punishment.

Not trying to flame I just don't get the point?