Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

The assumption there is that if it wasn't a patriachy it wouldn't be capitalist, and we'd all be some Marxist socialist

No. Matriarchal or ones where the sexes have equal opportunities capitalist societies could exist. This is not one, though.

And yes if a single woman was self sufficient, or worked,she could claim to be rad fem, if however she sends her man out to work on it, whilst she looks after the kids for him, then no, clearly not so much,🤣

How many feminists are totally self sufficient? My point is that we are all compromised by degrees, in a patriarchal capitalist society, including women who work in paid employment. I don't just look after my D.C. for my husband, I do it for all of us. Including you because my D.C. is part of the future generation.

I don’t see how a small amount of women managing to have a high flying career and a family is dismantling the patriarchy or radical feminist in itself? Does Teresa May do this? To have true equality we need women from all walks of life to be valued and respected and that includes sahm.

I saw leafs remark several 100 posts back as a retaliation to a poster making it wohm v sahm. Give it a rest!

I'd also say if a man and a woman did not work and were totally self sufficient, the woman could also claim to be rad fem. the issue is when she enables her husband to go work in that patriarchal society at the expense of her own career, she also ensures he has an advantage over working mothers in that parriacty by taking care of the kids, then she cannot be radically feminist. Liberal. Yes. But not radical.

Not working outside the home would presumably free up my time to grow vegetables, make our own clothes and bake bread- I might even keep our own hens and goats- even less collusion in the capitalist system.

Doing this would of course all be timed after husband and I had made some sound investments in the property market when mortgages were cheap and easy and taking advantage of a relocation package- because the last part isn't colluding with the capitalist system.

I think this would make a great idea for a sit-com.

Our current capitalist system is a patriarchal system. Challenging capitalism, in this context, is challenging the patriarchy

The assumption there is that if it wasn't a patriachy it wouldn't be capitalist, and we'd all be some Marxist socialist. I don't agree with you, i don't want that society. Not even slightly. in addition your argument is illogical again, because the way to change that, if you really believed it, would be to work within it to remove the patriachy, not send your husband out to work in it and you stay home spending his money. Growing your own vegetables is not challenging the patriachy.

And yes if a single woman was self sufficient, or worked,she could claim to be rad fem, if however she sends her man out to work on it, whilst she looks after the kids for him, then no, clearly not so much,🤣

lilting you are off again down the backroads of the patriarchy. Male entitlement and not facilitating it at women’s expense, that is at the core of attacking the patriarchy. Baking bread and growing your own may attack capitalism but it has feck all affect on patriarchal structures.

Consider if a woman lived on a pretty much self sufficient feminist commune, would they be seen as radically feminist or not?

Our current capitalist system is a patriarchal system. Challenging capitalism, in this context, is challenging the patriarchy.

Lass yes, all we need is to know how to grow vegetables and take care of our babies.

Lilting, your argument is confused. You're argument that you're reducing capitalism by reducing your conseumerism works. It does not work in context of changing a patriarchal society, when to do this, you need your man to go out there in a patriachy society to work and provide for you, whilst you take care of the kids to smooth his progress and make his life easier.

Yes totally. Whilst ignoring the fact the Male is out there working and making money, unhindered by the requirement for child care. Just like it has been for centuries

Yeah, funny that. I'm colluding with the capitalist system yet my husband is just following the natural order and providing for his family. Really why bother educating women at all beyond basic reading and writing?

I also don't understand why you keep referring to capitalism. I have no issue with capitalism and this thread is not about capitalism. It's about a patriarchal society.

Is this why your argument is about consumption, as you're confused as to thr thread topic and thr difference between capitalism and a patriarchal society.

Capitalism is not directly correlated to gender. I guess you're you've heard of Margaret thatcher?

Lass as I said, by reducing her and her families consumption which is a step against patriarchal capitalism. She is also not being exploited as an employee by the patriarchal capitalist system

I am not sure what point you are replying to but this is just more Marxist claptrap.

Not working outside the home would presumably free up my time to grow vegetables, make our own clothes and bake bread- I might even keep our own hens and goats- even less collusion in the capitalist system

Yes totally. Whilst ignoring the fact the Male is out there working and making money, unhindered by the requirement for child care. Just like it has been for centuries.

But hey if you're growing your own veggies, that's alright then.

My addressing the younger generation lilting. Not the ones who already Try to benefit from it.

She can reduce her collusion with the patriarchal capitalist system by reducing consumption of paid goods and services for her and her family. Allowing them to live on a reduced, single, income

What this means is that , for example, in my situation I could have stayed at home and my husband and I could have dispensed with a nanny, a cleaner and a gardener because employing them is "colluding with the capitalist system".

Not working outside the home would presumably free up my time to grow vegetables, make our own clothes and bake bread- I might even keep our own hens and goats- even less collusion in the capitalist system.

Doing this would of course all be timed after husband and I had made some sound investments in the property market when mortgages were cheap and easy and taking advantage of a relocation package- because the last part isn't colluding with the capitalist system.

Good question and the answer is i treat them the same. I have no interest in men who have a woman at home enabling them to perpetuate a patriarchal society. I much prefer to converse with men whose wives or partners work and they themselves take 50 percent of the childcare.

So how do you propose to change the existing patriarchal capitalist mindset if you never speak to and change the minds of people, who, in your eyes support it?

Lass as I said, by reducing her and her families consumption which is a step against patriarchal capitalism. She is also not being exploited as an employee by the patriarchal capitalist system.

.I do wonder if Bluntness would talk to my husband (and other men like him) at parties

Good question and the answer is i treat them the same. I have no interest in men who have a woman at home enabling them to perpetuate a patriarchal society. I much prefer to converse with men whose wives or partners work and they themselves take 50 percent of the childcare.

Gender isn't relevant to me here, because both the man and the woman in this context are doing their level best to capitalise on and perpetuate a patriachy. They are both at it and equally guilty in my eyes.

Lass, I've never claimed to be living a perfect life with reference to radical feminism

Straw man. I never said you did. For the umpteenth time I have zero interest in whether you or any one else is living their life in conformity with radical feminist principles.

My issue with you is the sheer hypocrisy in your (a) nodding along with posts such as women should support each other and saying you have always done this coupled with your offensive comments about women who pay for domestic help and (b) the cant about not contributing to the patriarchical capitalism system after you have benefited from it.

Sorry typos.

It should read, your opinion appears to be its radically feminist And changing society because you live off a mans wages.

By having a different but equal role to other radical feminists. She can reduce her collusion with the patriarchal capitalist system by reducing consumption of paid goods and services for her and her family. Allowing them to live on a reduced, single, income

I don't understand this logic. Nearly all families with a stay at home mother, live off a single salary, the mans. The woman only does it in this context becayse they can live off the mans income. Her being home with the kids allows the man to go be the breadwinner unhindered. How is this radically changing society so there is no patriachy?

I can't understand what your saying, Your explanation a
Pears to be in your opinionit's radically feminist and changing society because you live off the mans wages? Seriously? You think this is radically feminist? You don't see that as the very scenario we are trying to change?

Lass, I've never claimed to be living a perfect life with reference to radical feminism. I don't believe there are many that do or even can. I said so numerous times upthread.

I am one of those sahm that Bluntness wouldn't speak to at parties. I have school aged dc, none with additional needs and I have facilitated my dh's career. I'll hold my hands up and say that my choice has given dh an advantage in the workplace. I do wonder if Bluntness would talk to my husband (and other men like him) at parties, given that he is the one who is 'benefitting' from the patriarchy. The thing though, is back when I was a wohm ( when I had 1 dc), I was a facilitated woman as much as my dh is a facilitated man - my parents did all my childcare (for free) and my dad even drove me to work when he picked up my baby in the morning. As a wohm, I really wasn't doing anything more for non facilitated wohm than I have as a sahm. But Bluntness would have spokrn to me and valued my opinions as a fellow working woman, even though there is no appreciable difference between who I was and who I am now! I am not unusual in having had a lot of support. And I don't think it is unreasonable to say that all of us are facilitated unless we are totally self sufficient. Some of us are lucky with family support, others buy their ability to balance work and family life. And it's true that often the people doing the facilitating are not the best paid and a huge number of these lower paid workers are women. It is the nature of capitalist society and we are all just trying to live the best lives we can.

I don't think my dh really is benefitting from this system, in that although he does well at work I do not really believe that working long hours etc is the best way of life. Which is where the rad fem sahm bit comes in for me. I believe life for all would be much improved with total dismantlement of the patriarchy, men included. My dh doesn't really want to work long hours, be away from his kids etc, but our other life choices and the society in which we live, have made it this way.
I didn't want to have just one child, for example. So my life was never going to be the same as it is for Bluntness.

I don't understand what you are accusing me of here

Are you serious? You are the poster who accused women who purchase childcare of exploiting other women.

By having a different but equal role to other radical feminists. She can reduce her collusion with the patriarchal capitalist system by reducing consumption of paid goods and services for her and her family. Allowing them to live on a reduced, single, income

Says the woman who did very well out of the patriarchical capitalism system which gave her the opportunity of buying property when house prices were a lot cheaper when we bought our house. Mortgages were easier to come by. A relocation grant funded our initial deposit on our first house

Yet at the same pointing out ways in which she does not contribute to the patriarchal capitalist society.

And I am assuming the SAHM has worked. She knows what obstacles she will come up against when trying to juggle career and family. All that happened is she decided to step away from them, not attempt to juggle.