What's wrong with being a SAHM?

River

Clarity I don't agree with your example but yes, lots of decisions are unfeminist.

Where do you think I've gone wrong in my thinking?

I think the difference between your feminism and mine is you are all about the individual whereas I'm looking at women as a class, and I also don't think we exist in a vacuum so a great many of our choices are not truly free choices.

I agree, we don't exist in a vacuum. However we cannot deny we are individuals. No matter what group we belong to, if a choice is not one we agree with, but we feel pressurised to make it, in order to conform to that group, we are oppressed. However if we willingly make a choice, even though we know what the agents of oppression are, the disadvantages, the choice is likely to be our own. I think it is being fully informed that offers greater freedom, not blindly following the herd that says they care for us, yet insist on us doing as they say.

Clarity I don't agree with your example but yes, lots of decisions are unfeminist. I think the difference between your feminism and mine is you are all about the individual whereas I'm looking at women as a class, and I also don't think we exist in a vacuum so a great many of our choices are not truly free choices.

Statistical actuality. Typo.

I don't judge a woman for doing this - I've done it myself. Twice. But I judge it to be an unfeminist thing to do and in fact if I could go back to marriage 1 (quite apart from not going through with it) I wouldn't change it.

I would only deem a decision unfeminist if the reasons it were made were due to not wanting to challenge patriarchally enforced gender stereotypes. That means only the person who made the decision could tell you whether it was an unfeminist one.

Otherwise all sorts of decisions could be deemed unfeminist.

Single sex changing rooms could be deemed unfeminist, reinforcing gender stereotypes, if the reason they are wanted, is seen as being due to males being seen as stereotypically violent aggressors against women and not wanting to challenge this perception or statically actuality. That is, they equally could be seen as a result of male oppression against women. In highly traditional societies safe segregated spaces are highly prioritised and women generally are less safe in mixed spaces. Yet single sex changing rooms are not seen as unfeminist because many women feminists prefer to change amongst the same sex due to privacy reasons.

I see challenging one, the surname, might be seen as easier than the other, the need for segregated changing. Violence is more difficult to tackle than disapproval. However, depending on the context, violence could be a realistic threat in either decision. Both decisions are made in the context of patriarchy but not always necessarily directly due to patriarchal oppression.

I do think woman should be the care giver and the man should be the protector and provider. I don't understand what's wrong with that?
Also if our baby is a girl she will be educated and she can be whatever she wants. I will be happy as long as she is.
I would just like to add my dad was a stay at home father and we loved it! He was amazing at it and much better as a parent than my mother was and still is!

This is the most contradictory non sensical thing I've ever read.

You think women should be care givers, but will teach your child she should be whatever she chooses? Even though you think she as a female should be a care provider?
Your dad was the amazing stay at home parent but you think it should be a woman's job?

Why can't you explain what you think? Why can't either gender be the care giver? Why can't it be shared and both work? Why can't women be the provider and rhe man the carer, why does only one option work for you?

Your post actually infuriates me because you bucket women into that old domestic drudgery role as if by their very gender they should do it.

No they shouldn't. How appalling. It's about what's best for them and the family. Women fought for years to have choices. And they fought hard. But you just think that way?

Sorry to be late back to this, went out.

Clarity the reason why changing your name on marriage is not a feminist choice is because it is something we do in this country within a sphere of patriarchy (ie the historical background of women being possessions of men) and inequality. I doubt you get one man in 1000 marriages who even considers changing his name.

I don't judge a woman for doing this - I've done it myself. Twice. But I judge it to be an unfeminist thing to do and in fact if I could go back to marriage 1 (quite apart from not going through with it) I wouldn't change it.

OP - you say you live the 1950s housewife ideal - so you'll be knocking back the Valium and hitting the gin at 3 pm, then ? Your choice, but I do question the sense in becoming financially dependant on a man who is so bad with money he has to have pocket money doled out to him like a child.

Would you say you were a controlling person? Because that's the impression I'm starting to get.

Unless married, I mean.

If you are not married to your partner thrn imho it is a very bad idea to be a sahp. In the event of a split you have no right to spousal support for yourself, only child support, which can be pitifully small and nowhere close to what it actually costs to raise a child.
I would advise all women to never ever give up their own earning potential to support a man's career/look after your shared children, because he is under no legal obligation to protect your financial interests if you split up and you could find yourself well and truly buggered if he dies.

You'd be better putting this on a more formal (and legal) basis, OP. Like a joint current account and a separate savings account in each your names, for example.

I agree. But even then there's nothing to stop him opening his own account for his salary/taking out a credit card in his name/spending the savings if he lapses into bad spending habits. I'd be very cautious in the OP's position.

Agree with clarity - it shouldn't be his internet banking, which he can lock you out of anytime he chooses, but your joint internet banking, if you choose to sah.

Also, I think you need to look at what being a 1950s housewife actually meant before declaring it to be your ideal existence. Marital rape was still legal and as a woman you would have needed a man to counter sign any mortgage agreement etc. Not exactly living the dream, is it. Which is why your friends might be taking issue with it as a concept.

I have his internet banking so I can see everything and I sort everything out

You'd be better putting this on a more formal (and legal) basis, OP. Like a joint current account and a separate savings account in each your names, for example.

OP - I'm still really interested in your answer to this question though:
Why do you think men should do the providing and women should do the caring when it was the other way round with your parents?
I think that it's best for women and men to take responsibility for both.

I don't think women's choices should be dismissed out of hand, far from it. But I do think posters can be defensive about their choice to such an extent that it makes them feel attacked by feminist analysis, when this is absolutely not the intention, and that offence can then be used to shut down debate.

Look, feminism should make us feel uncomfortable because it involved challenging the status quo and our unconscious as well as conscious biases.

I am well used to defending my choices, amongst women and men. Yes, the result if this can be to shut down debate, if they have no genuine response to my points. Does that mean these points should not be made?

My points are not made in order to feel comfortable. They genuinely reflect my perspective. I cannot help if this does not fit in with, or complement, the perspectives of those I am conversing with.

The truth is that feminist issues are complex. I think it is wrong to overly polarise the arguments. I am a feminist, though, because I genuinely support women's freedom from oppression and right to equality.

I don't think women's choices should be dismissed out of hand, far from it. But I do think posters can be defensive about their choice to such an extent that it makes them feel attacked by feminist analysis, when this is absolutely not the intention, and that offence can then be used to shut down debate.

Look, feminism should make us feel uncomfortable because it involved challenging the status quo and our unconscious as well as conscious biases. Feminism is not about stroking your head and saying 'good for you, hun' - that is female solidarity, which I love, but feminism is the scary step beyond female solidarity that takes us out of our comfort zone.

Calm down Clarity and have a . You are starting to attribute things to the wrong posters.

Have I? Where?

it is worthwhile to examine the context of choices.

But I also think we should not less this, contextual evaluation, cause individual women's genuine choices to be dismissed, out of hand, due to the oppression of women in general. This takes away real women's voices.

Calm down Clarity and have a . You are starting to attribute things to the wrong posters.

A lot of people who woh end up doing the juggle so it still puts people off. Some families have both parents pick up the responsibility but many still don't. Often, women have the worst of both worlds and working is exhausting. Sah is sometimes an easier option. That is one point.

Another point is it is often underestimated how exhausting looking after young (and even school aged children can be). I do think it is less stressful for one person to take responsibility of that side of things. It doesn't necessarily mean the woman but because we're often lower earners, it ends up that way. I don't think it's necessarily feminist to believe that a baby or 2 will just slot into 2 working parents ' life. It just doesn't in my experience unless you are very rich and can outsource everything .

Our society wants everyone out at work no matter what. I don't think working with children (or at least not full time) is for everyone and can be detrimental to parents' mental/physical health in the early years. In the later years, teens often need one parent to support them through school and emotional stuff. It's hard to home home at 6 faced with homework tears, friendships dramas and a bunch of chores, inc dinner and admin to boot.

As for depending on a man, yhat can happen on 2 salaries. These days, not many families are automatically set up to survive alone. They are interdependent, with the man just as dependent on the woman's income. Who can go from a family home to 2 separate homes And not feel the pinch?

But OP's partner also dependent on her, as she is in control of the finances. She gives him 'pocket money'. In your situation, I'd put some money aside, in savings and investments in my own name, too OP. So your partner cannot suddenly decide to make some very costly decisions.

Luminaries but I do think that saying 'feminism is about choice' is pointlessly glib and it is worthwhile to examine the context of choices.
I absolutely agree with you on this.
I also changed my name when i got married. I had a silly romantic idea about it and didn't think about what it really meant.
Wish I hadn't got married at all now, not because of my husband - he's fine! Mind you I would never have heard the end of it from my mum or my mum-in-law if we'd had kids 'out of wedlock '!