Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

In the UK there's increasingly a move away from the more generous spousal maintenance orders, an expectation that the SAHP will look to move into work

I know someone (SAHM) who is going through a shitty divorce. Their daughter is seven. The assets will be split, she gets a proportion of his pension and will be finically supported until their dd is of secondary school age.
That’s far from a shitty situation.

I’m aware there are some absolute bastards out there who hide their income and assets and not need to be done to address that

Totally agree lilting and user.
This country is shameful in how it treats women and their children post divorce. Child support payments nowhere near reflect what it actually costs to keep a child (and you oftrn have to fight to get payment at all). What particularly pisses me off is that payments get reduced if the non resident parent starts living with a person whose own child lives with them full time. As if the nrp's children suddenly cost less to feed and house! This system results in lots of single mums needing additional state support, while the father's of their dc carry on having sufficient cash to go on holiday etc. How is that fair? Meanwhile single mum gets demonised because she needs state support. Men should be forced to pay properly for their own children.

Alimony seems much more common in the USA. There are restrictions e.g. the marriage must have lasted perhaps 10 years and the alimony is limited in duration, but at least there's some support for the SAHP to get back on their feet. Some states consider educational qualifications earned during the marriage to be marital property as the spouse will have provided support while the qualification was achieved, and the educated spouse will be required to pay a share of future earnings to the other spouse. Much fairer than the British attitude of "forcing lazy SAHP to support themselves after divorce".

In the UK there's increasingly a move away from the more generous spousal maintenance orders, an expectation that the SAHP will look to move into work

And I think this move devalues the role of SAHP and is anti feminist as this change will mainly effect women. This should not be used to argue the role of SAHP is an anti feminist choice but rather the courts are being anti feminist in dismissing the value in a role which women primarily undertake. Feminists need to speak out against this action.

In the UK there's increasingly a move away from the more generous spousal maintenance orders, an expectation that the SAHP will look to move into work. I've been saying on some of the other SAHP threads lately, it cannot be relied on in the same way. The possibility of spousal maintenance is still more protection than an unmarried SAHP/lower earner gets, but it's being moved away from.

Re contracts, it's an interesting idea, but to have any teeth it would also need an enforcement framework. That potentially means a cost to taxpayers. I'm not saying don't do it, but it would need to be costed and presented as eg this will save the state X amount in benefits after couples with a SAHP split.

I’ve started a thread on universal basic income, it’s in feminist chat (can’t do link)

The woh partner will continue, post divorce, to benefit from the career advantages gained from having had a sah partner and also from taking no time out of the workplace.

This is exactly why judges award alimony payments. Although (correct me if I'm wrong) it's less common in the UK than in the USA? It should be more widely used as a tool to assign financial value to a SAHP's contribution.

choosing to remove ourselves from the workforce is in some way "submitting to the patriarchy"

I'm actually grateful to DH for working hard so I can take time out to raise DC. He doesn't necessarily have the better end of the deal. If anything I'm benefiting from the opportunity to be SAHM, not being oppressed by it. What I would like to see is more support for women returning to the workforce after SAHM. Currently employers view the career gap negatively and it's difficult to get back on track after a break.

I can see it being good for taking away the stigma and stress away from claiming benefits. It would also free up time and reduce financial pressure which would allow for people to improve their skill sets aimed at getting back into employment.

I'm not exactly sure. You'd have to study the case studies where this has been done over a number of years. The idea is an interesting one, though

The case studies are a bit on the small side. I might start a thread about it as it’s a topic I’m interested in but know nothing about.

Yes, I think it will take time, though, to truly see the effects of this.

It's really interesting.

There have been a few experiments but none really do what we're talking about. So in Finland they did a small group getting £500 a month. That isn't enough to actually support yourself although it's better than nothing.

The problem with universal income is that to make it work economically it has to be lower than lots of people currently get (especially vulnerable groups). So people like me are better off as I get no benefits currently but people currently getting housing benefit and/or income support or whatever are worse off.

I'm not exactly sure. You'd have to study the case studies where this has been done over a number of years. The idea is an interesting one, though.

I think the main problem seems to stem from the fact that the idea of being a SAHM has been utterly devalued. It is considered "less than". If you choose to be a SAHM with a partner that supports you financially, you are in essence also supporting him. You are freeing the other person up in the relationship to provide monetary assistance, while you are performing an equally valid position by providing consistency and stability in the homestead. It is not an unequal role-it is just different. And very valid. I think by considering the idea of motherhood as a (very hard, very rewarding and important) job we will as a society free ourselves from thinking that choosing to remove ourselves from the workforce is in some way "submitting to the patriarchy". Each partner plays a role, a different role, but an important one that many would consider being the most beneficial for everyone involved.

The problem with universal income is that to make it work economically it has to be lower than lots of people currently get (especially vulnerable groups). So people like me are better off as I get no benefits currently but people currently getting housing benefit and/or income support or whatever are worse off.

I really like the idea in some ways - you could just chose to be an artist or run a charity or, indeed, just look after your family - but I don't think the numbers can work.

I think that the main problem in regards to

I’m always a bit baffled by the universal income thing. Is it that all citizens get paid a living wage by the state? I just can’t quite get my head round it.

Yes, I suppose the idea is that this is cost effective when compared to all the administration involved allocating welfare payments.

I’d think a universal income could work well for sahp. I think more flexible working at all levels would make a massive difference too. We’d need a shift in perspective regards part timers though as the current obsession with presenteeism seems all consuming in many workplaces

I totally agree with more flexible work. Part time work is often poorly paid and less professional than full time work. This really needs to be addressed.

I’m always a bit baffled by the universal income thing. Is it that all citizens get paid a living wage by the state? I just can’t quite get my head round it.

krabby the contract would be as simple as legally agreeing that money earned by the wohp is legally jointly owned by the sahp. It would flag up situations where the woh partner wants the easier life and childcare that having a sah partner brings, but isn't willing to sacrifice anything themselves or offer legal protection to their spouse.
It would create instant economic value to sah, but not impact on taxpayers.

as a result of being a SAHP will generally only be relevant to a fairly small number of roles/fields.

You'd be surprised. Having a member of the family who takes on the role of SAHP often necessitates learning new skills. This is because a loss in monetary income, along with some flexibility and freedom in how (unpaid) work is managed and prioritised, time wise, means a diversification, skills wise can be prudent. So a SAHP may be more likely to take on work themselves or manage a home based project themselves rather than outsource.

I’m not sure about a contract - if it is like a marriage of equals then maybe, if it’s he who pays the piper calls the tune, not so much.

I’d think a universal income could work well for sahp. I think more flexible working at all levels would make a massive difference too. We’d need a shift in perspective regards part timers though as the current obsession with presenteeism seems all consuming in many workplaces.

I had to go out earlier and whilst travelling was thinking that one of the reasons the role of SAHP is devalued so much in a patriarchal capitalist society is that it is in open opposition to the current model of patriarchal capitalism, where a large number of women work and are exploited in low paid service and care industries for very few benefits. Not entering into these low paid fields also does not support those women in power in the workplace. This is because there is no one left to employ to support the running of their own homes/caring for their own children. Being a SAHP means that women are not earning money or paying taxes or paying others to take care of running their household/caring for their children in order to support the capitalist patriarchal economy. Women, as valued members of their families, are much more likely to have ownership and autonomy over their own work.

Constantly I think the idea of a SAH contract is actually very progressive. I think it would do for SAH what pre nups do for marriage. Give a moment of pause in what can be an extremely precarious position typically for women. I would without hesitation sign one for DH, the PT/SAH parent in our relationship. I think it is actually a revolutionary idea.

just being able to talk about skills acquired whilst being a SAHP, where they are relevant.

I think it's fine to talk about skills acquired whilst being a SAHP where they are relevant. I guess the point is that the skills acquired as a result of being a SAHP will generally only be relevant to a fairly small number of roles/fields. It's different, of course, if you're talking about skills that someone has happened to acquire during the time that they have been a SAHP - I guess that could include just about anything.