What's wrong with being a SAHM?

Every time I read a post from a woman claiming her husband can only work because they don't I cringe. Both for the man who seemingly can't do two things and for the women who feels the need to have a high flying career partner and live off them claiming it's all down to them.

As for the children, they see the 1950s model of women play house and men have to work. Teachers work so hard telling both sexes to aim high and they can do any career they want but in the face of the old fashioned model it does little.

Agreed Pain.
Sorry make, what do you mean by basic income?

I agree avoiding, but as it stands society does not society does not do that. Therefore women should be fully aware of the risk of being financially dependent

The argument about SAHMs enabling men to get ahead at work is a bit ridiculous.

There are plenty of people at work who intend to never have children. There are those who put off having children until their thirties.

It is the norm at work to not have responsibilities for children. If you don't have children housework, washing etc are very minimal amounts of effort.

And work is not the whole of society. It isn't more feminist to go to work or to be in a better job than a worse one.

Which I think could be mitigated if society shared the wealth a lot more fairly

Basic income?

I think that comes back to protecting the sole income rather than a belief that his work is more important.

I can honestly say that I have no feeling that one way is better or worse than the other. Being a good parent has nothing to do with sah or woh. I've done both and was the child of a mum who did both. Each choice comes with good and bad aspects.
Feminism would do better if women made an active choice not to criticise other women's choices.

avoiding it's very common to hear about SAHMs doing everything and being proud of that fact.

On a recent thread one poster was talking about allowing her DH to give 110% to his work.

The problem with this discussion is everyone is taking it as a personal attack on whatever their own situation is

It is a massive risk. Which I think could be mitigated if society shared the wealth a lot more fairly when marriages go wrong and made men pay what it actually costs to raise dc instead of allowing male parenting to be optional. I think that is the biggest problem for sahm, that society still doesn't see that the wohp wages are family money, not just his.

No-one is undermining the value of work that a SAHM parent does. We are just saying that not having the ability to support yourself and your children financially, independently of your husband is a pretty massive risk

Hang on, who said anything about no involvement in family life? Women who allow their partners to get away with that shit are storing up trouble for themselves. In my house, if dh isn't actually at work, he is fully expected to pull his weight at home. And tbf, he does, because he is not a lazy piss taker.
But yes, it is easier for him at work because I csn do all the school pick ups etc.

I do see that other women who are mums in the workplace might feel that their lives are harder but in dual income households the pita logistics are comprnsated for by the fact that they have 2 incomes. And it is up to them to negotiate their own relationships to benefit their own families. Maybe they should be asking their own partners to sah? I certainly don't see it as my responsibility to go to work so other women don't feel hard done by. Just as they don't ferl they have to share the economic benefits of woh with me.

When people start building their careers they mostly don't have a full time housekeeper.

They look after themselves. They share tasks if they have a partner. They don't live in dirty clothes. They shop. They cook.

Yet suddenly, at some point they cannot do any of that.

It is much easier to build a career if you don't have to do all the domestic stuff too or say no to travel/late meetings because you have to get back for the childminder.

Indeed, which is why when women choose the helpmeet role they also indirectly contribute to the disadvantage of women, particularly mothers, in the work place. It is choosing to favour one mans advancement, to your financial advantage, over women as a class being able to progress in the work place. Women's lives are full of these shady compromises that men don't have to concern themselves with. It is testament to our strength that we have managed to achieve all we have.

I'm sorry but that's too convenient.

Enabling men to take no part in family life and being proud of the fact is not a good thing. Not good for the children, not good for the men themselves.

I don't see that as preening. They are saying that their own labour has value which has contributed to the income generated by their partner. It's usually said as a counter argument that domestic work isn't important.
It is much easier to build a career if you don't have to do all the domestic stuff too or say no to travel/late meetings because you have to get back for the childminder.
Women's work does enable men's work, but women's work is seen as having no intrinsic worth and when it comes to divorce that work is rarely recognised when the wealth is divided.

I don't know avoiding it's very common on MN for women to preen about how their DH's career is flying because he never has to clean a toilet or make a meal for his familyl .

I think that if society recognised sah as a valid choice and stopped allowing the financial penalisation of women who do this, then the levers of power and opportunity might be more accessible to women. The problem for me is that what I smd many other women have chosen, is deemed to have no intrinsic value.

Interestingly I once worked out that if dh and I earned his wage between us, as a family we would lose less in tax and be eligible for child benefit. So actually me sah has financially benefitted the state in some respects.

Women aren't becomming sahm in order to support their husband's careers as such. That ends up as a side effect. For many it is about wanting to be with their children for more time than if they go out to work, or about childcare costs eating up more than they earn. No one is actively saying that their dh's work is more important. It's just that when your family then has one income, you have to do what you can to protect it, which I suppose is where the priorotising comes in.

I do think work can be liberating for many women. I have skills to pay the bills and if I am not happy with my employer I can (and have) gone out onto the open market to get a job that suits better/pays more/just a wee change.

It is utterly incomparable to the dense weft of love, obligation and desire that bind me to my husband through the good times and the bad. I made a lifelong vow to my DH. My employer and I have a notice period.

I do realise not all women have my education and skills, however many do but decide not to use them in favour of supporting their DH's career. That is their choice, but it is made in a profoundly unequal paradigm that disadvantages all women. Feminism challenges that status quo and I get that that can feel scary or threatening. Feminism doesn't judge the compromises that individual women have to make, but it does recognise the larger picture of those individual actions and the long term implications for women's access to the levers of power and opportunity.

Wanting to be a SAHM doesn't make you not a feminist. If you thought all women should have to be SAHMs, that would make you not a feminist.
There's a lot of confusion about what feminism means but, if this is what you want and it's what you're happy with and you're not doing it because you feel you have to then that's great, I'm sure you'll be a wonderful SAHM and you can still identify as a feminist, so long as you hold the belief that women shouldn't have to do certain things (or not do certain things) just because they're women.
I would like to be a SAHM (I don't have DCs yet) and I still very much feel that I am a feminist.

This conversation can't really go anywhere if you equate changing jobs to leaving a partner/husband/marriage

Clarity, that is the POINT. It is not an easy thing to do. Which is why caution is advised.

You don't tend to build a life with your employer, have children with them, be in-love, etc etc

It's relatively easy and not emotionally horrific to leave an employer.

And you can get divorced/leave a husband/remarry.

Pain, having a contract does not stop women being exploited at work. Legal disputes at work can be lengthy, costly and emotionally challenging. Marriage is also a legal contract.