What's wrong with being a SAHM?

If you marry someone who appears in every way to be reasonable, and then they become abusive, and so you leave, you haven't made a mistake to learn from.

Most usually most abusers, if you have known them long enough, before you marry will betray their character in some way. However it is completely understandable to make mistakes, so there is no need to be defensive. A mistake is still a mistake even if you made it in ignorance.

In the context of this thread, what does that mean?

In the context of this thread, IMO, a good relationship is a non exploitative, non oppressive, mutually supportive one.

My point was that people can be supportive in more ways than just financial ones. People need support beyond finances. Money cannot buy you the care that family and friends can provide.

What mistake?! If you marry someone who appears in every way to be reasonable, and then they become abusive, and so you leave, you haven't made a mistake to learn from.

What I find interesting is how SAH Dads are treated differently. I'm currently pregnant with DC2 and after a years maternity leave DH will give up his job and look after both DCs at home (DC1 will be in school by then). This makes more sense for us as I am more ambitious, earn more money and am more likely to progress in my career. I have a professional role that I enjoy and do not want to give up.

People's reactions to this have been mixed. DH either gets treated as if he is some kind of hero or pitied as if he isn't being a proper man. But no one has warned him of the financial consequences of being dependent on me, which is something that we have discussed.

Spartacus, I said this,

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

Notice relationships is plural, when I originally made this point. One failed relationship does not mean someone is unsuccessful at managing relationships, as a whole. You have to sometimes make mistakes in order to learn. If you never made mistakes it would mean you never tried anything new - which would be a mistake in itself.

The perfect housewife- thing. I think its important that your DH also wants a perfect housewife and you don't end up in a situation where he resents what you do and you do not feel appreciated. Personally I want a partner who contributes financially, not a perfect housekeeper. We both keep house anyway as everyone has to. I think a lot of people who work don't get the perfect housewife thing as to be honest I also bake, make dinner, clean my house.....

'If someone has a failed relationship it does not mean they can never have a good one.'

In the context of this thread, what does that mean?

So if someone decides to become a SAHM, then has to leave the relationship after ten years, the damage of that will be mitigated by them meeting someone else, who will then be prepared to alleviate their poverty?

So you can become some kind of serial financial dependent?

I don't see why some man, who is not the father of my children, should want to (or morally have to) increase my standard of living if I get into a relationship with him.

So I'd still be very poor from the first failed relationship.

If you're not married SAH is inadviseable, unless you are personally wealthy.

Spartacus

For all those saying how employment is exploitative, etc. then why is it OK for men to do this? Why is the choice to stay home almost always made by women

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?

That doesn't make sense.

If you are in a relationship, the man becomes abusive, you know to cut your losses and leave, then the relationship has failed, but you have successfully managed the relationship.

That's is the whole POINT. You can't successfully manage an abusive relationship. Women end up dead, trying to do that. Or a husband who has affairs. Women need to be able to exit relationships, if need be.

It's a terrible insinuation, that women who find themselves separated/divorced/alone are in that position, because they can't manage relationships

Painful The whole point is that if you are successful at managing relationships you don't enter into an abusive relationship or don't continue in an abusive relationship. You know when to cut your losses. It is not a terrible insult to say a failed relationship is unsuccessful. It is not an insult to say an abusive relationship is not successful. If someone has a failed relationship it does not mean they can never have a good one.

I don't believe being a sahm is a feminist choice. It offers no challenge to the status quo

But the status quo is now women returning to work after a year of mat leave.
Most women work in some capacity these days.

So most definitely choosing to be a sahm you are challenging the staus quo.

There's nothing unfeminist about being a SAHM. It is work and very important work.

But people on a feminist board are going to point out the risks to women. Just as they'd point out the risks to women in a variety of jobs.

You could of course become financially better off if your DH decides to invest money from his career. But he might decide not to.

Your kids could have a high standard of living if your DH decides to spend his money on them. But he might decide not to.

I was married to my DH for twenty years. I was a SAHM for much of that time. He became financially and emotionally abusive. He earns a very high salary. I don't earn enough to pay rent and so am living with a sibling. There won't be money for me from a house sale, because DH ran up massive debts on his own hobbies.

So I now basically have nothing financially, have had to leave behind everything I know, and there are very many women in my position. I am in no way unusual.

Now, I am still glad I was a SAHM, because getting to spend all that time with my kids was so amazing. Money isn't everything. But you have got to really be prepared for the eventuality that you could end up in poverty and insecurity, because it happens to many women, and none of them believe when they get married that they will be the one it happens to.

He didn't need someone to do everything for the family so he could devote himself to it and absent himself from domestic life

Excellent!

My DP is a high earner. His occupation more-or-less assumes a SAHW looking after him and travelling with him. There are long hours involved as well as frequent moves. I refused. I'm a definite minority though and I am often held to account for this and told I am 'mean'. I think his career has suffered to some extent, but that's really not my problem. It also means he has to cook, clean and shop for himself when he's in places that don't provide accommodation. However, he's been offered contracts where he has seen the money sign and it's like the old cartoons where this appears in the eyes and it is all the character can see. I've suggested that he negotiate for more leave, shorter hours but 'KERCHING!!!!' wins the day. If he and other men were really concerned about sexual equality and dismantling gender roles then they'd fight for more time with their families or indeed looking after themselves in other ways if they don't have families...

I was with you clarity, until this...

'If you are successful at managing relationships'

That's is the whole POINT. You can't successfully manage an abusive relationship. Women end up dead, trying to do that. Or a husband who has affairs. Women need to be able to exit relationships, if need be.

It's a terrible insinuation, that women who find themselves separated/divorced/alone are in that position, because they can't manage relationships

Equally my DH's lucrative legal career has gone from strength to strength despite his wife working .

He didn't need someone to do everything for the family so he could devote himself to it and absent himself from domestic life.

It's
Your choice.
I chose to go back to work and so glad i did
DH got made redundant and I was able to pick up the slack for a few months.
The qualifications for my work have changed over the last 10 years and it is more difficult to get in. So over the years ive had in house training to keep me current.
I liked the idea of being a perfect housewife. By the end of mat leave I wad ready to go into work mode!
Keep your options open. SAH maybe best for you but it may change over time!

A friend of a friend gave up her lucrstive legal career so her DH could concentrate on his also lucrative legal career. Shame he also developed a secret gambling addiction and lost his job, house and also marriage.

She now lives in a council flat, with her 2 children (who also had to leave private school) and is in a minimum wage job. He doesn't pay a penny in maintenance. Her being 15 yrs away from her old career wasn't a huge selling point for prospective employers.

I was a SAHM mum for 8yrs and I have nothing against it but It has taken me a good 7 yrs to get my career back on track. I had to restart on minimum wage job and do professional qualifications competing against young employees with no caring responsibilities.

I was lucky because my DH wasn't an arsehole. But I've known many women whose DH has had a complete personality change upon become a father and there is really no way of predicting this.

For all those saying how employment is exploitative, etc. then why is it OK for men to do this? Why is the choice to stay home almost always made by women?

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.

But surely the point, from a feminist perspective, which is what the OP is about, is that it's virtually always the woman who stays at home. For most men (and their employers) the idea that they might be the one to give up paid work isn't on their radar. Once a baby stops being breastfed (or isn't ever) then there's nothing a woman can do for their DC that a man can't, but it is still so ingrained in our society that childcare is woman's work. Should that ever change, then being a SAHM will be a feminist choice.

(And of course there's the problem of wifework - that, regardless of whose working and earning, everything to do with the house and family is down to the woman to plan and execute.)

I think most professional careers its incredibly difficult to return with a big gap being out of work on your CV. Most women I know who gave up work never returned to work again and I think its at least important to realise its a complete career killer.

What about health? That too is precarious. Or elderly parents. Or kids needing extra input. You can't say 'life is unpredictable so it's better to rely on one wage earner', because with respect, that makes no logical sense.

If you read all my posts Morris, you should see I am not saying that. I am saying that we cannot negate all vulnerabilities. Instead we should be adaptable and tenacious to be prepared to do what is needed for our families and ourselves as the need arises. Different people encounter different opportunities, encounter different challenged and have different strengths and weaknesses. This makes for different people being vulnerable differently even if put in the same situation.

Financial dependence is not exactly synonymous with being vulnerable. If you are successful at managing relationships, if you are financially dependent sometime in your life the impact can be lessened or completely negated. People who only have unsuccessful relationships are reliant upon having unbelievably good insurances and paid support if they become dependent on others for care due to health issues.

Because one person being able to wholly concentrate on their career is often more financially lucrative. From there, investments become the safeguards.

This point is often missed in these debates, although, to be fair, it is probably really only applicable to very high earning professional jobs.

One of my SAH friends was a corporate lawyer for a City firm. She went back to do a bit of project work, which she said was okay, if boring - and paid about 20% of what she'd have got for the same "time" if she'd been full time. So, yes, she and her DH could both do this and split the childcare and earning between them.....but they'd have a lot less money as a family. And significantly less financial security than they have with one SAHP and one high earning, long hours working parent. Depends on your circumstances.

I think a feminist can be a SAHM but I think it is important that you reserve the right to change your mind.

You might love it (indeed many women do) but you might absolutely hate it. At the moment you have a theoretical idea of what being at home with your DCs will be like.

Also something like 50% of marriages fall apart (even more for cohabiting couples). You need to protect yourself financially

I have been a SAHM, worked part-time and full time and they all have their pros and cons.

The people I know have jobs, not careers. Neither dp nor I have ever been offered the chance to work longer hours and become more successful.

What about health? That too is precarious. Or elderly parents. Or kids needing extra input. You can't say 'life is unpredictable so it's better to rely on one wage earner', because with respect, that makes no logical sense.