I am a feminist and a sahm

The other assumption is that SAHMs are somehow 'out' of society and people going to a paid job are somehow 'in', as if you aren't engaged with the outside world if you don't get paid.

I think that stems from paid employment being taxable hence "contributing to society", whereas unpaid work doesn't generate any taxes.

Hence if you go out to work and pay a childminder the same amount (for example), you break even, but the government gets 2 sets of taxes. Probably why they prefer it...

The other assumption is that SAHMs are somehow 'out' of society and people going to a paid job are somehow 'in', as if you aren't engaged with the outside world if you don't get paid.

Not totally relevant but I've seen a Conservative councillor has suggested the Labour candidate for his constituency won't make an effective MP because she's pregnant and will be "too busy changing nappies". No men expecting to become fathers would be told that.

Oh man, stuff like that makes me really angry.

Funnily enough, me and my DP have discussed the future and thought that he'd make a great SAHD, and he says he'd love to do that (in many years time!). We currently work at the same company and almost same salary (he has worked here 2.5 years, me 1.5, so he is on a grand more atm), so it would be totally feasible. Our industry has a really good male-female split, and at the conference I went to recently, it was pretty much 50/50 in the top leading roles and presentations. It is a shame that him being a SAHD would be such an "unusual" choice and we'd probably get loads of family questions if/when we did do it!

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/shell-busy-changing-nappies-tory-10447953

I also think the patriarchal thing here is that raising children is worthless, valueless. When in reality it is priceless. Few other mammals put so little value on the nurturing of their young. In other words, the contorted part is not you, but the value society gives you. Next time you see him, ask him to explore a little more with himself on why staying at home caring for children and nurturing animals is worthless and who has decided that it is. I think he will find it is the patriarchy.

Not totally relevant but I've seen a Conservative councillor has suggested the Labour candidate for his constituency won't make an effective MP because she's pregnant and will be "too busy changing nappies". No men expecting to become fathers would be told that.

I'm pretty sure those women a hundred or so years ago campaigning for votes for women were wearing petticoats and bonnets and long dresses and lots of other highly unfeminist things. But no one would argue that they were not feminists would they? Some of them died in those long dresses being feminists.

Many women don't want to stay at home but feel forced into it. On other sections of this board alone I've read of women who didn't want to but did - one because she thought her husband would go on to earn more as he's a man even though she was the higher earner, one because she was made to feel she'd be "less of a woman" if she didn't, a few due to pressure from husbands. Only this week there was a thread from a woman who wanted to go back to work but her husband said "only if it fits around the children, the children have to be your main priority".

Obviously this isn't how it should be But the thing is, this is how it is. And there are some tasks - pregnancy, birth, recovery, breastfeeding if BF - that cannot be delegated and create a natural career break for at least a short time.

The other thing that I don't see talked about much is that many women just want to look after their own DC themselves. After carrying, birthing and feeding them there is often a strong bond there. Or maybe a bond that still needs time to grow. Obviously not everyone wants to stay home, nor should they feel obliged to or bad if they don't. But wanting to look after your own DC is a good reason for prioritising family responsibilities if that's the case. It's a patriarchal thing that women's feelings and relationships can't be a valid priority. I know so many women who would love to have had more time with their DC in the early years (along with many who were glad they didn't!)

I don't really have an opinion about 'kept women' but suspect that there may be a range of reasons why women do this.

why do we not see as many men go part-time or stay at home? Even when the woman was originally getting paid more? Why is it a default for women to give up their career or put it on hold?

Quite. So often this happens and a lot of the time the woman didn't even want to put her career on hold. It's this cultural expectation that women are by default the ones who need to sacrifice careers and stay at home if they have children which needs to change - for the good of everyone. Women's careers are seen as lesser and men's matter more, this seems ingrained in many. The notion of men sacrificing their careers, putting theirs on hold and being the main caregiver to their children whilst supporting their female partners shouldn't be remarkable.

I think that refusing to participate in a system which expects women to take responsibility for everything whilst men carry on regardless can be a feminist choice.

Obviously this isn't how it should be - in the ideal world, both partners can work the same amount (PT so one is always at home, or FT) and do the same number of pick ups/drop offs and chores. Work split evenly, so no-one is responsible for "everything". Of course that's unfair.

I don't have an issue with seeing childcare as actual work - it is, and it costs a bomb to get someone else to do it! Why should women do all of it though - why do we not see as many men go part-time or stay at home? Even when the woman was originally getting paid more? Why is it a default for women to give up their career or put it on hold?

An another note, the sorts of people that women at my work get annoyed with, are those whose kids have grown up or who don't have any - who have a cleaner and sit at home going to brunches and Pilates. I think someone said earlier in this thread they've heard men say "my wife won't have to work a day in her life!". Fair enough if you want to do that and your partner's OK with it, but I wouldn't be. I notice that there aren't a lot of well-earning women who are happy for their husband to stay at home and go to the gym and watch football all day.

I think that refusing to participate in a system which expects women to take responsibility for everything whilst men carry on regardless can be a feminist choice.

OTOH I see childcare and other unpaid 'women's work' as actual work.

My DC have DH's surname and I kept mine. Mostly because I wanted it to be clear to others that they are his DC. His responsibility too. The DC having my name would have reinforced me being the default parent in the eyes of others IMO. DH didn't care either way.

I think the lack of financial independence makes it difficult to equate being a SAHM with feminism.

Quite (I think even the term "maiden name" shouldn't exist). Such outdated patriarchy for children to get given their father's last name almost as default.

If I ever have children they'll have my surname. There's no way I'd go through carrying them in me and giving birth for them to be given someone else's surname.

Yes, it is like people will accept that a woman might keep her maiden name, but the notion that the kids will have her last name and only hers if she is married is considered extreme and agenda ridden.

When in fact my kids have my last name because I have the nicer last name! But that kind of reasoning is only okay if the woman has the less appealing last name.

That's a fair point.

I suspect that many SAHP do a whole load of housework rather than actually have thirty hours, and that many partners do have a whole lot of time to themselves in the evenings and weekends.

I don't think there are that many long term SAHPs anyway. There are many who have kids in primary and one still young and at home, and many who work part time though.

That is ridiculous SylviaPoe. I've read of lots of similar, assumptions women would be "Mrs", post addressed to "Mr and Mrs" after a couple are married even though the latter is an incorrect title, people struggling to comprehend that many women keep surnames if they're married (which shouldn't even need to be commented on). Then of course the assumption even if all this is accepted that a child would have the father's surname.

*Well, kids are only out of the house for six hours a day, five days a week - so thirty hours a week in total, forty weeks a year, and even then, only if none of them are disabled or never get sick.

The rest of the time - volunteering, study, seeing friends, exercising, reading, pursing hobbies etc. *

On this topic - is it not unfair (once kids are school age/left), if one partner is working and comes home to kids & no me-time, whereas one gets 6 hours (or the whole day) off and has ample downtime?

I agree with you that it's both valuable work/contribution when one is working and one looking after kids full-time as PP above said, but if one partner chooses to stay at home when there are no kids - why is it fair for one to work but one to not? Unless the working one doesn't see the kids in the evenings and has "downtime" then, but I suspect that doesn't happen.

Ridiculous conversation...

Teacher: Is your husband from X part of country (associated with last name Poe)? I'd love to talk about X.
Me: No
Teacher: Oh, I thought he might be because your DD has the last name Poe.
Me: That's her last name because my last name is Poe and I from place X.
Teacher: Oh, I don't understand all these modern relationships.

Feminists can work full time, work part time or stay at home, it is attitude that is important. However it is not necessarily a matter of choice, people work often due to necessity. Feminism is not a one size fits all

Yeah, I don't really see how your husband could reasonably get too upset about it once you explain why. I quite like the idea of double-barrelling - especially when the result is amusing...

And personally, I feel guilty living off other people's money

I don't see it as 'other people's' money though. We both see what my partner earns as 'family money'. We are a team and there is no 'his money and my money' in our home. I don't feel guilty because although I don't contribute financially, I contribute to the household in other ways and my partner values what I do just as much as I value what he does for our family.

I would change my surname when we get married mainly because I hate my surname and had been the butt of many jokes since childhood.

'No chance I'll get married unless any potential husband wants to take my surname.'

I love this.

If not changing your surname would upset your husband then he wouldn't be much of a husband. If men don't need to change their surname neither do women.

No chance I'll get married unless any potential husband wants to take my surname.