Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

I had a sahm, because ss wouldn't let her work, it was bad form for a woman to work and kids be latch key. It looked like the Dad couldn't provide for his family.
There was no such thing as men working from home then, shared leave, or flexible hours, we are so lucky now.
However, my Dad used to come home and take over at 5.30 whilst mum dished up tea.
Mum would then go out and do her volunteer charity work and her many women's guilds
My mum was an amazing role model.
You don't have to work to instil a good work ethic in your dc.

"How many SAHMs had a SAHM themselves I wonder?"

I had a SAHD (raised in a coal mining town, mum still had her factory job after the mines closed and dad was unemployed). Having a parent at home was hugely beneficial to me in terms of having a reliable parent who was there 24/7 and dedicated his time to educating and supporting me. That's one of the reasons I want to be a SAHM, because I want to give my DC the sort of parenting experience I received (and I can't afford childcare anyway, which is one of the reasons I had a SAHD myself).

Haven’t read the whole thread as it’s infuriating this discussion is in feminist chat and is panning out the way it was about half way through.

My understanding of radical feminism is that the radical bit is to change the way society is fundamentally set up so that women are in the centre of it with men. So you would be paid to sah in a rad fem world because an equal society would value childcare and would see it as worthwhile work.

I sah because I was made redundant on maternity leave - could it be a more feminist issue? 1000s of women are put in my position every year. My mum worked out of the home from when I was 6 months and my dad sah or I went to cobbled together childcare. I have no issue with working or sah.

It’s so much more complicated than ‘choice’ and who’s being a ‘good’ feminist or role model for their kids. I hope my dc think I am a good mum when I work and when I sah as neither of those things has any bearing on how much I love them or how much I want the best for them, as I imagine is the case for nearly all parents.

If dh leaves me then I’m fucked to an extent and will have to get whatever job would have me that can pay the bills and fit round wrap around childcare. I have qualifications and experience coming out my arse but while the world of work does not have to acknowledge the world of wrap around childcare or the cost of nursery, you have to take what you can get. Another massive feminist issue. Another issue that gets simply written off by ‘choice’.

My DH would love to be at home with the children, most men I know would, if money was taken out of the equation.
Here’s a test, those of you who are SAHMs, ask your partner if they would swap roles with you if your income and future earning prospects exactly matched theirs.
Men don’t necessarily not want to be a SAHP, but they are also socialised and role modelled to grow up and earn a living. They have less choice than women in this aspect of life.

At a macro level though, I do think it it does matter (hugely) that talented women are opting out of the workforce. Opting out of decision making and leadership.
How many SAHMs had a SAHM themselves I wonder? I didn’t so it’s never occurred to me to not earn a living. The role modelling and socialisation we are exposed to as children can be quite powerful. More so than “biology” I think.

oranges no, I don't think they do feel sad for the most part. I think most men who work full time feel they see quite enough of their kids.

I think raising children well is so important, but as you said it is not recognised or paid well. I do think you should choose, but also you need to protect yourself financially. When you become dependent on another person you become vulnerable and you are at the mercy of a man. It’s this power balance that has kept women down for so long. I don’t mean this means you should work, but I do think it means that raising children should be given a much higher status and there should be official payment and protection for what you do. How that could work I don’t know! Some sort of contract? Training opportunities?

Yes, I feel it is. As a woman I exercised my choice to leave work, stay at home and raise my children. I also pursued higher education during this time. & I didn't refer or defer to anyone regarding doing this.

I don't define my worth and value via working outside the home. I've the right to choose what is important to me, just as others have the right to choose what's important to them.

Immaculate conceptions don't exist.. 2 people make a baby. If one is going out to work, be it the man or the woman, then they aren't working 'for' the other adult..One is supporting the family within the home, the other is supporting the family outside the home. It's about balance.

If all had the courage of their own convictions in at least trying to make choices happen then there wouldn't be this constant browbeating and over focus re SAHMs. If every woman who had a baby then put baby into paid childcare (& I'm not against any woman who does that, it's not my business) then there'd simply be something else to moan about, to do with mothers. Women are the easiest scapegoat targets.

If a woman over the road chooses to stay home with her baby it doesn't impact upon me. I'm not invested in pulling reasons out of the air to pretend that it does.

I think saying biology is the reason women leave work is insulting to both sexes. Obviously in the first few months it makes sense. But after? Do men not feel sad to miss out on seeing their kids more then? Are we just driven by hormones ?

I work pt now as no children at home really, except dd some weekends and holidays.

As a sahm for 25 years I believe we got the balance right.
I managed the money, still do, even the business.
My dh was fortunate enough to be at home a lot as self employed.
So when it came time for me to study he changed his work to fit in with this and was at home for the kids.
As he was coming in early hours of the morning he did most of the night feeds when they were babies and also did more than his share of household tasks.
I suppose he worked what would be considered as pt out of the home, and it helped that he was able to be flexible.
I would be fine if we split and could buy a small house outright, as could he. I spend what I like when I need to, and have certainly never been given housekeeping, or pocket money. It's all family money, wherever it comes from.
We have never been rich, and relied on tax credits for most/all of the time, so it's not like I've spent his money in a life of luxury, it's usually essentials or school fees.
I'm glad I was at home all those years, and wouldn't change a thing.

I don’t really understand the biology point once children are at preschool age. I genuinely see nothing about my biology that pre disposes me to be at home then more than my children’s father. It’s very very different to post natal and the early breastfeeding months, when biology definitely comes into it.

I think it’s personal preference perhaps but not “biology” which sounds like it’s outside of your control.

I am a SAHM. I control all the money. Literally. Husband doesn't even bother accessing it, if he wants to buy something for himself, he tends to ask me to do it. He has no interest in how much money we have in the bank account as long as all bills are paid. He has no access to online banking because he can't be arsed with it.

He earns money, I manage it accordingly.

When at home, he takes over the childcare. I sit down and don't lift a finger.

OTOH I do all the housework.

Home life is nice and quiet and peaceful and as far as I'm aware, nobody is willing to change the way things are.

And if we split up? I'll be just fine.

I am also a radfem. So there.

" Lots of people are dependent on their partners for lots of things over their lifetime including working parents not earning enough to support themselves. There just seems to be a particular aversion and disdain to a SAHM's dependence that doesn't exist in relation to other forms of dependence."

Because it's so skewed towards women, and it often puts them in a vulnerable position. This makes is a feminist issue.

"I do subscribe to the theory that biology can impact a mother's decision to stay at home so I therefore would expect SAHP stats to be skewed towards women staying at home."

Even if you believe this (which I don't) it is just 1 factor, which on its own is not enough to explain the massive skew in statistics. You have to acknowledge the other factors at play here, surely ?

"Supporting and valuing other women's decision to SAHP or work in paid employment would serve feminism much better than criticising other women's choices IMO."

You're missing my point. It isn't about devaluing SAH or criticising women. If we don't make real changes to encourage men to take up that role too then all we are doing is making women feel better about the fact that they SAH and changing nothing.

Thought experiment - a couple who earn the same in the same industry. After kids they can either both work part time, or one can stay at home.

We know that current working practices reward sole focus on career and so the second option may be more optimal for that family. Let's assume that is the case. One person has to SAH or go very part time.

I would argue that there are other structural factors at play that mean that the woman is overwhelmingly more likely to be the one to step out of the work force even in this seemingly level playing field. Those factors make me angry as a feminist. They include inherent sex discrimination in the workplace (even pre kids) as well as the way we socialise and bring up females in society. There are loads more.

I don't think this is right or fair. Not because I think raising kids is a shit job or look down on women who SAH (as I'll no doubt be accused of) but because I believe that every human being should have the option to have a varied and interesting life with good balance between work and family and kids benefit from this too. If we cannot have a work life balance utopia, I strongly believe that the "time out" should be shared between the male and female partners - why should one sex have all the career opportunities and all the earning power and the other have the time with the children? Both miss out.

I guess what I'm saying is codependency and dependency can end up with the same fate once support is withdrawn. Those who earn enough or can find jobs to support themselves single handedly will always do better than those that can't but staying in employment will not always offer protection for all women

With regard to low paid work. I would hope that working tax credits would fund some of the costs of childcare. Thereby making it financially beneficial to work even a minimum wage job over staying at home.

Friend of mines relationship broke up. She’s on a low wage she was financially better off without her —useless waste of space— husband.

Surely a woman's decision to be SAHM exactly perpetuates the working practices you describe.

No. Inflexible working practices necessitate SAHPs but it is the devaluing of the role which perpetuates inequality. If the role were valued, employers would value it in terms of seeing a person who has spent some time as a SAHP as more employable.

Supporting and valuing other women's decision to SAHP or work in paid employment would serve feminism much better than criticising other women's choices IMO. It offers greater flexibility and means that women do not suffer further at the hands of other women as well as men. Valuing people and their skills helps employment. Valuing time spent as a SAHP is part of this.

"So is not supporting a woman's decision to be SAHP. It devalues the role and also perpetuates the patriarchal capitalist working practices which favour men whose partners SAHP."

You can't have it both ways. Surely a woman's decision to be SAHM exactly perpetuates the working practices you describe.