What's wrong with being a SAHM?

The whole thing needs an overhaul, not just the replacement of men by women who've been socialised to think like those men.
It's a survival instinct isn't it? Adapt or die. The women who are scathing of sahm are just as much victims of the system as any other woman - they have to fit in with the existing structure or they won't thrive. They see sahm as opting out. At the same time that system loads them with guilt and criticism for woh.
Nothing good comes of womrn pitting thrmselves against each other. We all get defensive about our own lives and choices and the system carries on as it ever did!

It's not about whether you trust women or not, I don't think. I think the battle is more about changing the attitudes of everyone, women and men.

Well if you refuse to trust women, leave it to the men. They've done a sterling job so far.

I fear that a a lot of women have bought into this notion that the only value people have is if they directly generate money. They have been brainwashed into despising other women whose choices have been different and at the same time despised themselves by a society that criticises women generally.

I think this is why some women start to fantasise about the 1950s housewife. Because staying at home to look after children was accepted and normalised. I sometimes crave this type of acceptance and started to watch some old sitcoms and dramas. However I got swiftly reminded about the really shocking misogyny (and racism) that existed then and had to turn off! So, I am under no illusions, there has been a lot of change for the better, even relatively recently, too.

Sorry, I mean Avoiding.

X post Saint

To change this, we need to change the sex of some of the lead voices.

But a lot of women don't value the role of SAHMs either.

And replace them with women who have had successful careers and therefore think all other women should have done the same and anyone who deviates has 'thrown themselves under the bus'? Or thrown away their education. I get the shivers at the thought of someone like Butter being my lead voice.

I fear that a a lot of women have bought into this notion that the only value people have is if they directly generate money. They have been brainwashed into despising other women whose choices have been different and at the same time despised themselves by a society that criticises women generally.

Society does not value SAHMs because the lead voices are male.

To change this, we need to change the sex of some of the lead voices.

I think that when couples split, the courts should recognise if one parent had sah to look after dc, thus scuppering thrir own earning potential and this should be reflected in the financial settlement. The court should also award in child support what it really costs to raise a child, so divorced women are not financially disadvantaged by being a rp.
Men should not be allowed to opt out of raising their dc - not seeing your children for weeks on end constitutes child neglect to me and should be utterly socially and legally unacceptable (with rare exceptions, like being on active service in the forces).
Men should not be allowed to cherry pick the parts of parenting that they fancy and treat the rest like it's optional.
It's this that holds women back, rather than sah per se.

Which is weird, because the treatment of SAHMs has always been a feminist issue.

The Wages for Housework campaign, for example. I heard one of the campaigners from the seventies talking about that, and she felt that in many ways it had been a success, because we now have child tax credits, which do give a level of autonomy and security to many SAHMs.

A major problem now I feel is lack of council housing. That makes it more difficult for women to leave, as does the change to legal aid.

The greater one would be why society does not alleviate that risk by providing better safety nets for SAHMs.

Agreed, Saint. It is an issue that can feel almost impossible to discuss, though. Since there seem to be so much disapproval aimed towards SAHMs.

Well, that is one feminist issue.

The greater one would be why society does not alleviate that risk by providing better safety nets for SAHMs.

But why is it invariably women that have to bear the risk - that is the feminist issue.

PP, some people know that and still think it is a risk worth taking though.

SABLe here who have partners who support them financially, are entirely missing the point

It's a valid way to live your life/spend your time/run your family. The point is, that it leaves the stay-at-home-parent very vulnerable to being stuck in an abusive situation, unable to exit/support themselves.

It's great that it has worked out for you all. For so many women (and it is overwhelmingly women) it doesn't. It's a huge huge risk to take, based on love/faith/trust etc, with potentially horrific consequences

There is evidence that the career sacrifice applies at higher earnings levels too, eg recent reports onBBC and CEO pay

Have had mixed experiences with childcare: currently using after school care that isn't ideal, and have to squeeze in DCs' learning later on, or at weekends. Definitely was lucky with our CM.

My identity was never linked to my career choices, I think that made it easier for me to SAH. I have a friend who is a doctor - I think if I'd gone through all that relentless training I would feel I couldn't possibly give it up to SAH. Different careers aren't comparable in the amount of sacrifice in giving them up or how difficult it would be to earn at that level again.

Trouble is threads like this often get dominated by WOHMs who are very qualified / successful, which just doesn't represent society. Work is a hierarchy, most of us have and would populate the lower levels of careers not necessarily the upper echelons. The career sacrifice is far less for people lower down the hierarchy.

Butter, I don't consider that I have thrown myself under the bus!
For the most part, I like my life. I accept that it comes with risks, which I have attempted to plan for as much as is possible. But life is risky. I also totally acknowlwdge that my choices were not made from a completely level playing field.
That said, I have really loved sah. I'm not generally bored, I don't feel I lack mental stimulation. Obviously not every day is a thrill a minute but neither was working ft. I enjoy my days far more now than I did when I had a horrible day coming up at work. Not all jobs are wonderful and enriching.

As a good parent, yes I do consider my children's needs to be a priority. But sah was about what I wanted to do, the way that I wanted to parent. I had access to lots of family support and free childcare in the form of my lovely parents, my dc would have been just fine if I'd woh for longer (I did when dc1 was small). However I wanted to sah - I missed being with them more than I valued my job, I suppose.

I totally agree with Natalie

There isn't a childcare worker who could have offered my dc the opportunities they have had if I had decided to work.
I'm not suggesting all parents should put their children first, but it's the decision we made.
The flexibility of being able to come and go as we pleased and our dc not restricted in the decisions they made from an early age have made me far happier than any career or job.
For us the best possible outcome, especially for dd who is set for life now.

Since when do the kids matter more than the parents in a family?

I'd hazard a guess it's since children stopped being an inevitable and often inconvenient consequence of sex, and started being actively planned and wanted. Yes the pill was invented in the 60s but it's only much more recently than that that most women have easily and conveniently had a range of contraceptive options open to them.

Once children became something planned and desired for most of society the shift towards them being prioritised was somewhat inevitable. After all why go through all the hassle in the first place if you aren't going to make them a big deal.

I agree carl the mistakes are hard to identify when you're making them. We usually avoid the ones we are cognisant of.

I wouldn't say it's impossible to have 2 parents working full time plus, travelling and steaming ahead at work whilst giving their children all needed attention, but it is harder for both parents than having one parent cut back and focus on the children. Which is clearly why few parents choose to have both people working ft. There are so many more things to juggle with both parents working full time.

I've found good quality childcare through nursery and primary very hard to find, there is an awful lot that keeps children entertained and that's about it. I tend to agree with natalia too - I had one nanny that used to put tv on as a constant backdrop, another that regularly talked to my dc about bingeing on things.

My elder dc had 2 horrible accidents at holiday clubs - the least serious involved her (fortunately baby) teeth being sheered off.

Perhaps I've had bad draws on childcare but I try not to judge other people's choices and hope for the same. There's also no promotion or pay rise without additional pressure...

I am a feminist and a sahm. This was a mutual decision because myself and DH both had v stressful jobs which couldn't be maintained with small children. We tried and it put enormous pressure on the household. However I have my own opinions, I retain my own name I partake in activities and sports which are male dominated. But, I would find it difficult to return to work at the same level should I need to so maybe deep down I do feel as if I have forsaken something and am a little bit vulnerable.