Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

" if we all go back to work ASAP regardless of if we want to stay at home or not for a few years then we are bowing to the pressures of the patriarchy and they have won. "

2 points on this

Is it not also men's responsibility to step up and take an equal share of the time at home and the associated career sacrifices? By not doing this they are benefiting from the status quo, keeping the economic power, perpetuating stereotypes and disadvantaging their female partners, other women in the workforce, other men who want more time with their families, and potentially their kids too

"Regardless of whether we want to or not". I would argue that the pressures of patriarchy force more women to SAH or go PT than force them to stay in work...

that's what makes the decision to SAH such a controversial one within feminism.

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. If the role were valued, returning to work would be easier, caring for family would be less detrimental to having a career, more men would take on this role.

"Taking a break from working isn't necessarily unfeminist or conforming to stereotypes"

It's much more common for women to take time off for kids than it is for men to take sabbaticals or take time off for kids. If it was more even, employers would be less biased against women employees (which perpetuates the whole problem)

User you've missed one important point. All this is so gendered. It's obvious that families will pick up an additional financial burden with kids and therefore the couple's personal finances become more interdependent. But I think the fact that the majority of the dependence is still by the woman on the (usually higher earning) man is a feminist issue and that's what makes the decision to SAH such a controversial one within feminism.

I'm not saying there isn't a difference, just saying there isn't necessarily a 'vast difference

I think there is a vast difference. You could potentially have been out of work for a decade. Getting a reasonably well paid job might not be as easy as you think (obviously I know nothing of your individual circumstances).

what is the meaningful difference between being financially dependent and codependent? Either way you're not financially independent are you

It gives you more options. I’m currently co dependent. If dp and I were to split up, I’ve still got my salary. I can downsize my expenses and would still have a decent standard of living once I was independent.

If I was a sahp and dp and I split up I would be fucked.

I guess I’m saying it’s easier to move from co dependence to independent, than from dependent to independent

I would question this one by asking how many mothers (and fathers) are completely financially independent and what the exact definition of this independence is. Are you financially independent if you take any state support?

I think there’s a vast difference between being co-dependant and dependant. I also don’t think you are independent if you take state support. Not that that’s a bad thing.

A lot of families go through a phase of taking more than they pay in in taxes. But children aren’t little forever. If you work for 40 / 50 years most of those years won’t involve caring for small children.

The problem is that many corporate environments expect their employees to act as if they don't have a family or any other responsibilities outside of work

Totally agree with this. We need a better work life balance. Not just for parents of small children but for everyone.

I used to think I had all the answers. But being well qualified and remaining in some form of paid employment still doesn't seem to insure against structural inequality between the sexes.

I currently work part-time in the most lefty, liberal organisation that it is possible to imagine. This is a female-heavy organisation with a large number of women working part-time in interesting, stimulating roles. But even here I have witnessed situations that point to the inequality of opportunity between men and women:

• far more men than women in senior roles for a long period of time

• long serving female administrative staff being made redundant and replaced by IT systems, only for those systems to not work and need a lot of assistance from highly paid consultants (100% male).

• a female job applicant (who had previously done an almost identical job in the same team for several years) being turned down in favour of an unknown male applicant. He is young and single, she has two small children.

• a man 15 years younger than me and with far less relevant experience being appointed to the same pay-grade and given the word 'manager' within his job title. I raise this as an issue but nothing happens.

• for my own part, applying for promotion (to a role for which I was more than qualified), going through a full external recruitment process and being turned down in favour of an external applicant who was happy to work full time.

• yet in an adjacent team, a few weeks later, a male member of staff was promoted up to the equivalent post without the role being advertised (either internally or externally) or going through any kind of process whatsoever.

What can one do? The problem is that there is always a 'reason' or a justification - but five years down the line the mature women have got pissed off, voted with their feet and gone on elsewhere. It is a female-heavy organisation, but somehow men can still rise to the surface. The ones who are fathers seem to have partners/spouses who shoulder the burden at home - I am never conscious of any of them dashing off to do pick-up or similar. Or do men just look more authoritative and more convincing in a female-heavy workplace?

The man who works with me is lovely and good at his role - I have no doubt that in ten years time he will have a senior post in the same sector and I will probably end up working for him!

You can't say what will happen in any individual case though. Best case scenario, the woman loses some days due to appointments and can't do heavy lifting or other physical tasks while pregnant. Worst case, she could be vomiting, exhausted, suffering from a number of pregnancy induced conditions, or even off sick. There's just no way to tell ahead of time, which is why employers see it as a risk.

"Pregnancy is nine months during which it's difficult to work at full capacity"

Maybe true for some women. Please don't perpetuate this crap, many pregnant women continue to work with no issues or run marathons or win tennis matches! These kinds of views make it harder for women to be seen as equally capable at work.

Wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said there TheGrumpy.

"And a one year old child isn't ready to be left by his mum while she works 10-12 hour days and overnight business trips etc to progress her career, "

Even if dad at home? I don't think everyone will agree with you there Bella. You don't have to take 1-4 years off work to have kids.

I agree. I don't think the solution is to tell women what "the feminist thing to do" is and disapprove of other decisions. But I think ignoring the barriers that limit women's free choice is very dangerous. What we need is to place the responsibility on government and policy makers to create a structurally more equal society, not (1) look down on women for managing any way they can despite the disadvantages we face OR (2) pretend we have equality and that if you didn't succeed at work after kids (just 1 example!) you just didn't want it enough or something

"@Bellamuerte and others arguing biology - does that mean that women should not have equal career opportunities?"

Women do to a large extent have equal career opportunities - until they decide to have babies. Pregnancy is nine months during which it's difficult to work at full capacity. Breastfeeding is a year. And a one year old child isn't ready to be left by his mum while she works 10-12 hour days and overnight business trips etc to progress her career, which is the sort of commitment that top level jobs require. Assuming another primary carer is available to take over, mum is still going to be out of the workforce for anywhere from 1-4 years per child, during which time her skills become less current.

The fault here isn't biology. It's how society is set up so that high powered jobs require single minded focus and long hours, and if you can't commit to that you basically can't progress. Not to mention that once your skills lapse it's very difficult to persuade an employer to give you a chance to catch back up. This doesn't just apply to mums - it applies to anyone with a gap on their CV or who wants a decent work-life balance.

Yes, you're right. It's funny isn't it though TheGrumpy, I remember the threads recently about "is it time to ditch Feminism?", and half the arguments for yes were saying we don't need it anymore because we have choice, and the other half were saying we don't need it because feminists just want women to do what THEY say instead of what the men say! So I guess both ideologies can be used to undermine femism.

I've said it before but I definitely believe it; I think the two work to their best advantage together.

@RatRolyPoly sadly this perception of free choice is often used by people to argue that we don't need feminism or any more change because women now have the option to work or stay home. Yay! So I do try to encourage people to think about the big picture and not just examine their own individual circumstances (which is what I think differentiates radical feminism from liberal). Then you start to see that the personal is indeed political, as it's a story repeated more often than not, by the majority of women.

By using devaluing as a negative incentive, the people already in that role suffer further.

Yes, I suppose you're right.

Surely not if it's a highly valued thing that is done 99% of the time by women? Surely they'll all just stay in the office with all the other men, regardless of perceived value?

Well, there is certainly a better chance of men doing it than if the role is devalued. There are also no losers when a role is valued. By using devaluing as a negative incentive, the people already in that role suffer further.

I would add that the ultimate aim is to remove the loading/inequality in women's choices and you can only do that by recognising that it exists.

I completely agree with you on this TheGrumpy, and that the "perception" of choice is a poor prize. However given that many women don't recognise that it is only a perception, I think not valuing that perception would be counterproductive in the short term.

That's why I absolutely recognise that radical femism gets the job done much more effectively... but liberal femism feels like it might get us there without having to fight both the patriarchy and all the women to get there.

Know at least two men who are SAHP or who work part time and have the smaller wage.

@liltingleaf but how do we achieve that? We are back to policy. I don't think you and I disagree that the work is important - I just think it shouldn't be default women who it falls to because that causes all sorts of problems in terms of expectations and bias. As pp said, men somehow need to recognise the value of that work and they currently take it for granted that a woman will do it.