What's wrong with being a SAHM?

I suspect we agree on many points Clarity.

SaintFrancis- absolutely, that's why I think it is a feminist issue! Caring for young children is vital to our society, but it's seen as nearly worthless. Children, and those who look after them, deserve better than that. It shouldn't be career suicide to take time out to look after your children, we should be helping mothers get back to work, not going, "well, you've stuffed that up by wanting to be at home with your three year old, you should have gone back to work immediately." Why not give a carers wage so that anyone who wants to can take a few years to look after their children without defaulting on the mortgage? It's crazy that we value childcare so little.

It's pointless to talk about supposed "opposite gender stereotypes" because they're not what's limiting choice. Gender stereotypes are. No-one has said being a SAHP is "anti-feminist", quite the opposite - as always on threads on this issue.

Saint, so we agree on that to some level. Pleased you clarified.

Being a stay at home parent isn't a "particular strength" of a woman or man.

I never said it was. However the subject matter of this thread questions whether a woman being a SAHP can be a feminist choice. Just because being skilled as SAHP is not determined by that parent's sex it does not mean a feminist being particularly skilled in that area is anti feminist.

Also my mother has always worked and excelled in her career, a fantastic role model to my brothers and I. She isn't "conforming to a reverse of the traditional gender stereotypes" as you bizarrely put it - most women and girls want to work. All the girls I know are already mapping out potential future careers, the "traditional gender stereotypes" only exist to limit everyone and particularly women and girls.

Equally a mother can be a SAHP and an excellent role model. Opposite gender stereotypes to the traditional ones would be just as limiting. People playing to their individual strengths, choosing their own path, is the only way to go to truly obliterate the effect of stereotypes. This means valuing SAHP and employed parents equally.

'Are you saying that it is impossible to be more or less skilled in this area? That successful relationships are merely down to luck?'

No. There are three elements. In some cases it cannot be detected in advance. In some cases abusers deliberately target more vulnerable women (for example prior victims of abuse ). In some cases signs can be detected. So for anyone in a successful relationship, luck will have played a part. Because it always could have turned out your partner was an abuser. And it always could be that you were useless at seeing the signs but happened to meet a good partner.

'As a further point, is a woman unfeminist if she values good relationships? If she invests time and effort into developing good relationships with people? If she values her relationships more with people than making money?'

No, good relationships are always more important than money.

'I think that if you want to do full time child care for the early years that people should respect that as a worthwhile endeavour, because raising children matters.'

Yes, absolutely. And that lack of respect is the crux of what puts women in such a bad position. Because society will not accept the time, skill and effort required for someone to care for small children, nor how vital it is.

That instead of playing to our particular strengths

Being a stay at home parent isn't a "particular strength" of a woman or man. Either a mother or father should be equally free to do so. This isn't the case at the moment due to a variety of factors.

Also my mother has always worked and excelled in her career, a fantastic role model to my brothers and I. She isn't "conforming to a reverse of the traditional gender stereotypes" as you bizarrely put it - most women and girls want to work. All the girls I know are already mapping out potential future careers, the "traditional gender stereotypes" only exist to limit everyone and particularly women and girls.

I am saying that I think your argument is unfeminist because it assumes that women are able to develop such a skill. Even trained psychologists find it hard to identify such people.

It also gives rise to abusers going undetected in institutional settings because a whole load of people who believe they have the 'skill' you are talking about all say that 'x seemed like such a nice man. He would never do something like that.'

It might be a difficult skill. But are you suggesting that there are no warning signs to any abusive behaviour? Are you saying that it is impossible to be more or less skilled in this area? That successful relationships are merely down to luck?

As a further point, is a woman unfeminist if she values good relationships? If she invests time and effort into developing good relationships with people? If she values her relationships more with people than making money?

Argeles

Agree totally

I am a SAHM and a strident feminist. I couldn't not be, after seeing how society treats motherhood, although I've always been a feminist.

I believe it is a feminist issue that caring, and child rearing, which have traditionally been undertaken by women, have such low status. I think looking after my DC and raising them to be happy, kind people with a social conscience is really important for the future of our planet. I'm by no means saying that you have to be a SAHM to do this, but that surely whoever looks after our children during the day is doing a really vital job in our society? Yet they are often nursery staff on minimum wage, or unwaged SAHMs.

Society says I'm wasting my education by taking time out of my career to look after my children full-time. I will probably struggle to get a job again because looking after my children is seen as "doing nothing." I think that if you want to do full time child care for the early years that people should respect that as a worthwhile endeavour, because raising children matters.

What I would like to see is more women (in this instance) understand that whilst their individual choices are theirs to make, that some of those choices aren't feminist choices. I have been a SAHM, and I've changed my name on marriage. I am fully aware that neither of those are feminist choices, and I don't feel the need to be defensive about that. I can also separate my individual choices from women's as a class.

I would also like to see more men tackle their employers about parental leave and flexible working. Even though parental leave is now a thing, it seems very few men, and very few employers, actually want it. Because the current system suits them down to the ground.

I never say you did think it was more or less feminist.

I am saying that I think your argument is unfeminist because it assumes that women are able to develop such a skill. Even trained psychologists find it hard to identify such people.

It also gives rise to abusers going undetected in institutional settings because a whole load of people who believe they have the 'skill' you are talking about all say that 'x seemed like such a nice man. He would never do something like that.'

The point of this isn't to say that being a SAHM is a safer or more feminist choice. It is that there are multiple ways that women are at risk in society, as feminists we should be honest about those risks, warn women about them, and see how we can socially alleviate them (by which I do not mean more women in paid employment).

It needs to be an even playing field where gender roles don't overly determine choices made. Currently, they do.

So what are you proposing, in the meantime, Spartacus? That instead of playing to our particular strengths we conform to a reverse of the traditional gender stereotypes? Surely this curtails individual freedoms just as much and is just as oppressive? Surely having to confirm to any stereotype against our will is damaging?

The crux of your argument is that women are usually able to detect which men are likely to be abusive prior to pregnancy, and so are usually able to avoid entering into such relationships.

I don't think that is a feminist perspective at all.

I am making a counter argument. To address the balance of being skilled at judging a prospective partner's character being given less importance in society than being able to make lots of money.

I see both as good skills to acquire. I don't judge being less successful in either area as being more or less feminist.

I thought everything you did. Now I'm stuck and financially fucked. That's why.

I don't know why these threads keep cropping up. There's nothing wrong with anyone being a stay at home parent, there's a lot wrong with the still ingrained assumption a woman in this situation should put her career on hold or sacrifice it so her husband can pursue his, hers isn't therefore deemed as important. Also wrong is the number of women pressured into staying at home if they have children either due to cost of childcare or pressure from their husbands/criticism of mothers who work.

I wasn't drawing any attention to that?

Spartacus, you referenced another poster's comments to the original point I made there. Here:

Spaghetti, so how would you have managed my particular risks? Managed advocating effectively for a child through SEN process and flexible schooling

Suggested that DP do it while I concentrated on my career.

Managed to not get breast cancer

Men are at risk of getting sick too.

And thanks for your responses. I'm not sure it would have made the quality of our family's life any better though. In fact it probably would have been worse. My particular formal qualifications and skill set meant I was better placed to advocate for my child. So do you think this was less of a feminist choice than if mine and my DH's roles were reversed?

'Portraying women who have had unsuccessful relationships as powerless victims does nothing to liberate them from male oppression.'

Nobody is doing that.

But women who have been in abusive relationships have been victimised.

The crux of your argument is that women are usually able to detect which men are likely to be abusive prior to pregnancy, and so are usually able to avoid entering into such relationships.

I don't think that is a feminist perspective at all.

We should definitely be making women more aware of signs of abusers and abuse, but your stance on it is unrealistic and contrary to what organisations like Women's Aid say.

The op asked for the negatives. She didn't ask what was positive. Nearly every single response said there is nothing wrong with it, but pointed out the risks. In turn we have a number of stay at home parents being defensive and angry. The risks are real, they are not judgements, they are simply warnings. We even see it on here regularly.

If it works for you, as it does for many, then don't be angry or defensive. It's not a judgement. She asked and people responded with honest answers of the risks involved and those risks are very real.

However what the hell its got to do with feminism I don't know. I can only assume the op thinks feminists wish to work and non feminists wish to stay home, which is why she has said she is not s feminist.. Which is total bullshit. She doesn't believe in the advocacy of women's rights or the equality of the sexes? Op, if that's true, i worry for the way you will bring up children of either gender.

But that imbalance is as likely to be played out at work as it is in the home

Of course. This is why we need to keep challenging workplaces as well as domestic ones!

Surely the whole point of feminism is recognising that there is a societal power imbalance which plays out in individual relationships.

But that imbalance is as likely to be played out at work as it is in the home. A woman who goes out to work is no less victim to societal imbalance. It is just the fine detail of how this imbalance may affect her might be altered.

It feels very close to victim blaming.

So does saying choosing to be a SAHP cannot be a feminist choice and is damaging to the feminist cause. It places the responsibility for eliminating workplace discrimination between the sexes purely on women who have opted out of the workplace. It devalues the work women do in the home and child rearing. It suggests work requires male validation.

Negating the importance of learning how to have successful relationships (outside the workplace) suggests financial status is more beneficial in society. Negating the value of unpaid work supports this idea.

Portraying women who have had unsuccessful relationships as powerless victims does nothing to liberate them from male oppression.

It is victim blaming.

And yes, Adelica, coming out of one relationship into poverty puts you in an even greater imbalance in future relationships. Because not only will there be an imbalance due to gender, but also a new economic imbalance.

It is not ok for anyone to be exploited. For staying at home to be a valid choice, does it have to be made by men, then? Does a particular type of work need men, to chose it, to validate it

It needs to be an even playing field where gender roles don't overly determine choices made. Currently, they do.

If you are successful at managing relationships, if you are financially dependent sometime in your life the impact can be lessened or completely negated

I wasn't drawing any attention to that?

clarity
I'm struggling to agree with you about this.

It feels very close to victim blaming.

Surely the whole point of feminism is recognising that there is a societal power imbalance which plays out in individual relationships.

When women come out the worse in those relationships- that societal power imbalance is a factor in women's financial status thereafter.