Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

"I don't necessarily think we should be looking to emulate men and takeover all the roles currently valued in society but instead be forcing a radical reordering of society where women's industries and vocations are properly valued"

1- even if this were achievable would you not want your daughter to have more options outside the traditionally female sphere? This approach would not get rid of stereotypes or combat the female / Male socialisation problems or encourage women into politics or business where they could have more influence on our society, where men currently hold most of the power

2 - the fastest way to ensure we value these roles ( in the absence of a revolution) is to formally attach more economic value to them AND for more men to do them

3 - if men don't have to do any of the traditionally female roles ( just pay more tax to subsidise them) then I fear that this will simply widen the divide between the sexes and cause more discrimination against women rather than empathy and respect for what women do

Grumpy Thanks for response. I think this is at the core of the debate. A nature v nurture thing I suppose.

Is anyone aware of any decent studies that have been done on this kind of thing? Reluctant to just Google as I tend to always get loads of blog/DM articles and I'm not sure that I have enough background knowledge to be able to distinguish an unbiased, scientifically sound study from one that's been done with an ulterior motive.

Oops earlier post should say low paid work

I'm not denying the physical differences between men and women eg size, bone density, strength, however. Just that this difference doesn't cause women to automatically be less interested in non traditionally female work.

@Bumpitybumper Yes i believe it's mostly socialisation (including military etc) except for periods when there are significant hormonal changes happening eg immediately post birth.

"Just don't pretend that working in a high status role is categorically the most radically feminist thing you can do as a woman"

Well conforming to 1950s gender stereotypes certainly is less feminist than doing this! If you are a ceo with SAH husband at least you are showing people that it's possible for things to be different and for women to do other things than SAH or lie paid work (in the absence of dismantling capitalism and long hours culture which we all agree makes the need for sahp greater)

Grumpy - Yep I think our difference in approach had been established. Just out of interest, do you think that men and women have any innate propensity towards certain types of roles (e.g. military etc) or do you think it's all down to socialisation?

Not being goady. Genuine question to understand your position.

"the only way that women will see their own traditional roles valued is if they are to some extent taken over by men. Why can't we fight for female dominated roles to be given the value they deserve irrespective of whether men want to do them or not?"

@Bumpitybumper we have already had this debate and I think the only significant difference between our views is that you believe there is some inherent biological difference between men and women that means women have some sort of natural desire to stay at home with kids / do caring professions etc. This is the sort of reductive stereotype that has allowed men to justify unequal treatment of women in the workplace for many years.
Yes I believe having equal numbers of sahd would be a good thing for women. I don't think men are naturally less good at child rearing (beyond obviously the breastfeeding period etc). I think saying that women should simply value our traditional roles under patriarchy better is actually undermining the feminist cause.
Going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

Bluntness rad fem is wanting patriarchy and any sniff of it removed from our society. It's working for the greater benefit of women to enable that

Yes I agree with this definition but I just simply can't accept that women giving up what I consider a natural desire to be at home to raise their families in order to compete with men for money is in anyway dismantling the patriarchy. Of course women with children that want to WOH should be able to do this on a level playing field to men but I simply cannot accept that to achieve this all women must be forced to fall in line with patriarchal capitalist ideals. Who has decided what roles get renumerated in our society and by how much? Men. Who have assigned social capital to roles? Men. It's no coincidence that the roles women tend to do have little or no payment and social standing Is this because they are intrinsically inferior roles with less value or BECAUSE women tend to do them and therefore the patriarchy must ensure that they are not given the status of stereotypical male roles? Why should an teacher be paid less than an IT consultant? Why should a cleaner be paid less than a bin man? I guess a key difference in our philosophies is I don't necessarily think we should be looking to emulate men and takeover all the roles currently valued in society but instead be forcing a radical reordering of society where women's industries and vocations are properly valued alongside men's and the SAH role is given the importance and validity I believe it deserves. To me this is rad feminism as it fundamentally rejects the patriarchy.

Also regarding your point about disadvantaging working women through being a SAHM.I would echo what other posters have said about it being the working culture that does that more so than women choosing to be SAHMs. This culture will exist for as long as there are employees without caring responsibilities willing to gain a competitive advantage through utilising their additional available time to work. If you eradicated all SAHMs would it then be fair? Of course it wouldn't. The families with wider support networks would utilise them, those with money would buy in help and ultimately it would be those with neither of those things that fall behind (probably still single mothers in lowly paid jobs). The culture needs to change rather than laying the blame on women choosing to be at home with their kids.

liltingleaf what do you think radical feminism is about?

Equally offensive is putting the blame on SAHMs for presenteeism within the workplace.

Equally, can you spare a passing thought, for every exploited woman employed in those services you have payed for, in order for your own family to be looked after?

What a ridiculous and offensive comment. I agree with Bluntness.

I'm good with that and will respond to you, if you're right I will say so.

Think a lot of yourself, don't you?

To accuse a qualified and experienced professional of being exploited when they work through choice in their chosen field is of course offensive. Don't play dumb.

I take it you don't read a lot of the teaching threads on here...

And whomever lumped you in with women who chose not to work wasn't me, I've been very very clear that my reference was with women who could but simply chose not to. I do not view women with children with additional needs in this bracket.

A lot of times people are not going to tell you their reasons and motivations. Neither is choice clear cut. I chose to care for my D.C. with additional needs. I was best placed to do this. I have a background in education. My role was incompatible with taking on paid employment. Did I choose my role as a SAHP?

I don't need to reread them lilting. Once was enough, I can assure you of that.

To accuse a qualified and experienced professional of being exploited when they work through choice in their chosen field is of course offensive. Don't play dumb.

And whomever lumped you in with women who chose not to work wasn't me, I've been very very clear that my reference was with women who could but simply chose not to. I do not view women with children with additional needs in this bracket.

As said, it's fine to feel defensive and want to put up a counter argument, I'm good with that and will respond to you, if you're right I will say so.

But before you do a third time, at least think it through and come up with something decent. Not all childcare professionals are exploited, and clearly women with children with additional needs was not what I was referring too. Both are bullshit counter arguments.

Make the third one worth both our effort.

You do them also a huge and offensive disservice by lumping them in the same category as women who can but chose not to when their kids have no additional needs.

I speak from experience as a woman whose D.C. had additional needs. I was lumped in the same category. I did not want to explain my reasons for being a SAHP every where I went. So the lumping in inevitably happens amongst those who would judge this role. The solution is not to be so judgemental.

I have worked in childcare also. I think I would know if what I say is offensive to the sector of people I work amongst and belong to. What qualifies you to comment what would offend childcare workers, Bluntness?

Maybe you should re-read my posts...

Equally, can you spare a passing thought, for every exploited woman employed in those services you have payed for, in order for your own family to be looked after? Also can you spare a passing thought for making SAHM's who care and advocate for their children with additional needs more difficult when you dismiss them as perpetuating the patriarchy?

Firstly I can categorically and unequivocally state that no child care I ever used was somone who was exploited, felt exploited and they would have either laughed in your face or been deeply offended had you suggested such a thing. There are some very qualified and well paid child care professionals out there. Stop being so offensive and stating it's all women who are exploited who do this role.

And I specifically stated women who can work and chose not to. In my view women, or men, who stay home with children with additional needs are doing a fantastic and very difficult job and are not in the same category, you do them also a huge and offensive disservice by lumping them in the same category as women who can but chose not to when their kids have no additional needs.

I get you want to make a counter argument, but think before you post, as you're simply being offensive to women who chose to work in child care and offensive to women who have children with additional needs that require them to be there.

These women at home with the kids through choice, by default are giving working fathers an advantage over most working mothers

It puts working fathers on a level playing field with people without kids. Remove the working father from the equation and the working mother would still be disadvantaged against others, male and female.

Also I still maintain that the problem is corporate culture and lack of opportunity for life-work balance. DH doesn't want to work as much as he does. He'd love to do the school run etc but his employer demands a higher level of commitment from an employee who wants to advance. Any employee who can't make that commitment for whatever reason, whether because they're a mum or something else, will not be promoted to a top level job.

Yes I consider it a feminist decision.

*So when he gets his next promotion and you're celebrating. Spare a passingthought for the working mother, who couldn't compete with him, because she did have to do the school run, she did suddenly have to take days off when they were sick.

And recognise exactly what you did.*

I think it works the other way round as well. Here's my experience, anyway. I didn't go back to work because I couldn't get the flexibility I wanted. And one of the reasons I couldn't get the flexibility I wanted was because one woman on my team had had that flexibility when she came back from maternity leave......and abused it royally. She wanted to be paid for four days a week, while actually working a lot less than she was meant to and in fact caring for her child when she was supposed to be working from home. The result? No more flexible working as a company wide edict. My DH had a pretty similar experience with a woman he employed. He had the best of intentions at the start and came away pretty cynical about the whole experience. He wouldn't employ anyone on a flexible basis again either. It's not all one way....

These women at home with the kids through choice, by default are giving working fathers an advantage over most working mothers and are doing the opposite of rad fem, they are enabling and progressing a patriarchal society by their very actions.

Those there through circumstances will often want to view it as their own choice, in order not to feel utterly powerless. So that they can accept and own the work they do. Powerlessness is utterly demoralising. By attaching stigma to those there by choice you add to their difficulty.

It really is hard in real life, I certainly don’t have the answers.

Now, that, I do agree with.

Spare a passingthought for the working mother, who couldn't compete with him, because she did have to do the school run, she did suddenly have to take days off when they were sick.

And recognise exactly what you did.

Equally, can you spare a passing thought, for every exploited woman employed in those services you have payed for, in order for your own family to be looked after?

Also can you spare a passing thought for making SAHM's who care and advocate for their children with additional needs more difficult when you dismiss them as perpetuating the patriarchy?

But do you believe by paying for childcare which pays the workers badly you are not contributing to childcare worker's exploitation? Or that because SAHMs also do this your contribution towards this is negated?

Yes to the first question - I don’t believe that by sending my child to pre-school that I am contributing to exploitation. So I don’t think there’s anything to negate.

It is another interesting thread of discussion though. I don’t think boycotting services provided by poorly paid people is the best way to effect change in those wages. I could be wrong on this though. In fact maybe I am wrong here as I do take that approach to clothes - I don’t buy cheap clothes made in sweat shops. It really is hard in real life, I certainly don’t have the answers.

My preference if I was in charge of everything would be a radical uplift in the minimum wage. But I’m not refusing to shop in supermarkets in the meantime! I’m just not perfectly ethical!

Bumpity, sure, if someone has an extended family member doing all the school runs, doing all the sick days, cooking the kids meals, covering all holidays, etc. Sure I'd agree they were facilitated in their career.

I do actually understand why folks do what's right for them and their families. I simply take exception to Any woman who can work and chooses not to, trying to then call herself a rad fem. rad fem is wanting patriarchy and any sniff of it removed from our society. It's working for the greater benefit of women to enable that.

These women at home with the kids through choice, by default are giving working fathers an advantage over most working mothers and are doing the opposite of rad fem, they are enabling and progressing a patriarchal society by their very actions.

For every single woman who choses to stay home and look after the kids, there is a corresponding father with a corresponding advantage in the workplace.

So when he gets his next promotion and you're celebrating. Spare a passingthought for the working mother, who couldn't compete with him, because she did have to do the school run, she did suddenly have to take days off when they were sick.

And recognise exactly what you did.

I don’t think that means when I send my son to school in 18 months that I am exploiting them. Most SAHMs send their 3 year olds to preschool same as me so I don’t see that it’s relevant.

But do you believe by paying for childcare which pays the workers badly you are not contributing to childcare worker's exploitation? Or that because SAHMs also do this your contribution towards this is negated?

Equally, my cancer diagnosis has meant I am certainly not a career facilitator. Does this count as a rad fem attribute?