Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

Babdoc, you're a judgemental ass too.

Just read Bluntness' comments.

Living off my husband? Get to fuck. I work until the skin is literally coming off my fingers. A large amount of what we eat is grown by me. I fell and chop up trees to heat our house. I (kindly) raise animals we can eat. I'm teaching ds how to be self sufficient along with how to be a kind person and a feminist.

Raising children has no worth for you? That's sad.

I'm a SAHM and a staunch feminist. It helps that Dh is also a big feminist and cooks/cleans and I'll do outside work (tree stuff, farm chores etc.)

Ds just sees the both of us working a fuck ton. I don't think he'll think a second thought about women's or men's work.

TheShania I was responding to Bluntness' position, I suppose. I should have made that more clear.

We're both SAHPs and we both question all of those things. And this work gives me time tons of autonomy etc. By Bluntness' definition there are no circumstances where a woman can be a SAHP and be radfem in that, if they're a SAHP by choice (if it's by necessity then you're off the hook). I'm pointing out that that absorbs the patriarchal prejudice towards SAHParenting and care work in general. Yes, I want more of us to work in STEM areas, but I'd like nursing to attract the kind of salary it really deserves, I'd like care work to be given it's true due - not necessarily money, but recognition would be something - and if feminists can't manage that, who will? I'm not a feminist to be a pseudo man, I'm questioning our ideas about what gender roles should be in the first place, and our notions of what work should be valued more.

From my understanding of radical feminism, it's to do with structural oppression rather than the choices any of us individually make.

We're all just muddling through, trying to get the best out of life given our circumstances. The important thing is to think about why -

Why are these the choices we have been given?

Why are we always somehow in the wrong whether we stay at home or go out to work?

Why is it financially unviable for a woman to spend her time bringing up her own children?

Why is childcare so unaffordable?

Why are childcare workers so low paid?

Why does having a job mean seeing so little of our children?

Why do the lowest paid workers have the most awkward childcare to arrange?

Could it be that the sums don't add up because our entire economy has simply failed to factor in childcare as work?

Why would that be?

(haven't RTFT btw)

I couldn’t have stomached being at home, dependent on his salary like a child

Nice

Are you a SAHM because it works out better for your family circumstances/quality of life/because it suits your skills best or is it because you are the female or mother in your relationship?

I’m bemused by all the women on here who actually had a choice of whether to be at home or not!
I was widowed with two babies still in nappies, and had to work full time to support them, plus do all the housework, gardening, diy, shopping and decorating, plus drive the minder a 20 mile round trip to the station whenever I got home too late for her to catch the only bus from our village that was in time for her train connection.
It’s perfectly possible to be both breadwinner and homemaker- I don’t see why people think it has to be either/or.
Even if my DH hadn’t died, I couldn’t have stomached being at home, dependent on his salary like a child, with no income of my own, quite apart from the years of non pension provision that would have entailed.
I think sahm’s are taking a huge risk on their future finances and employment prospects, if their partners walk out. It doesn’t seem a very feminist or “empowered” choice to me, although of course they’re absolutely entitled to make it.

"childcare is not a valued job in monetary terms"

I disagree. It is valued, but the market will only sustain a certain price before a lot of customers are priced out. People have to make a profit by going out to work. Well paid childminders would have few customers who could afford to pay them.

"Every boss I've ever had has been a white man with a SAH wife"

My DH is the boss and I'm the SAH wife. He doesn't want to devote long hours - he has to. He'd love to have more family time but his job is too demanding and he can't take a step back because we need his salary. I'd love to not be SAHM but I have to because DH works and I can't match his salary. I agree that working parents can't compete, but the situation is a result of corporate expectations - one parent working long hours while the other parent has to be SAH is just a side effect of that. Most top level jobs are simply not compatible with parenting.

My son's working parents paid a very good salary to various trained nannies

I don't know why you assume it is "working mothers" exclusively who are paying for child care

We were talking about SAHMs and their choice to either work or not work. If they do not work, no money is paid to childcare (yes of course there will be some exceptions) and if they do work, then that money goes to childcare whether it comes out of the joint account or not. If we were talkiing about SAHP I would have said "working parents".

And it's great for your son and his partner that they could afford very well-paid nannies but most people clearly can't and don't do this, and thus childcare is done by low-paid workers or unpaid family members, the majority of whom are women. Because childcare is not a valued job in monetary terms, whether it's the parent, the nursery, the childminder or the grandparent doing it. If it were, you'd have more men doing it.

Regarding 'class analysis' it is also easier for the working parent too. No one likes 'juggling'. It is much easier to specialise and put your focus into one role. Workplaces are not really conducive to being very flexible and family friendly. Childcare is not flexible, parents have to take unpaid leave if their child is sick or nursery holidays conflict with their own. Until these things change it is always easier for one parent to stay at home. Until there is more equality in the workplace that person will most often probably be a woman.

I know that, I am one.

But this is class analysis, not talking about the few privileged to have it good and be creative and whatnot.

The radical question is WHY; and if women are choosing life at home instead of persuing those careers (despite girls consistent outperforming boys at school then onto university), just WHY?!

Because if you do this from within a good relationship with your partner, you really are your own 'boss'. You have pretty good autonomy over how and when tasks are completed and how you prioritise. It also can be pretty fulfilling nurturing children, cooking, gardening and decorating. You can exercise your own creativity. You get chance to spend your day inside or outside and at different locations.

I think on an individual level it's perfectly possible to be a SAHM and a feminist.

I think the problems arise when you take a step back and see that the vast majority of SAHP are women. I don't think that environment is very conducive to feminism, for all sorts of reasons mentioned already on this thread.

There was a thread on here earlier from a high-powered career woman asking how to improve work/life balance, we were many posts in before anyone suggested that maybe her husband could take a step back from his job. It was quite interesting but also sad.

Having said that, I'm afraid I personally wouldn't take a decision on whether to work/SAH based on if I feel it would help to advance the feminist cause. And I wouldn't ask my DH too either. So it's maybe a bit much to expect it from anyone else!!

Also there are a lot of people taking things personally here. Like it’s a personal attack on particular women. It’s not, it’s called class analysis.

Like when someone says ‘90% of murders that happen worldwide are committed by men’, this isn’t saying ‘all men are murderers’.

Not*

Sorry should have proofread. Stay at home mums eh

allthat it’s not ‘you can’t be a radical feminist if...’

Because if it was dogmatic, no one would be radical. We all have times where we are confirming to patriarchy, whether that be shaving, or putting a bit of make up on, or being a stay at home parent. The difference between radical and liberal feminism is radicals get to the root of WHY women make those decisions- they’re not made in a vacuum.

The SAHM thing is complicated but it’s nog necessarily that you SHOULD be in paid work, it’s that in this world ultimately women can only rely on themselves and if things go down the pan, women having their own money and their own way to get on without being dragged through the mud financially should divorce happen is a good thing. Also, the fact that women are underrepresented in various fields (STEM), the sex pay gap, ratio of Male/female CEOs, etc. The radical question is WHY; and if women are choosing life at home instead of persuing those careers (despite girls consistent outperforming boys at school then onto university), just WHY?!

Every boss I’ve ever had has been a white man with a SAH wife. He has never had to juggle domestic and children related issues with work, and has been able to devote long hours ( face time) to the job. It is very hard to compete with that when you are a hands on working parent (though obviously not actually raising your own children). The model of SAHM in middle class families (where affordabikity of childcare is not the issue) is not helpful to women in the workplace

But why blame and put all the responsibility upon the SAHM in this equation? If working practices were more family friendly in the first place there would be less of a need for one parent to stay at home in order to rear children. There would be no competition regarding having to 'juggle' because working practices would be truly flexible and fit in with family life. No one would be a penalised for a working style that fitted in with caring for children.

I don't understand why the radfem position is to privilege paid work over unpaid unless the unpaid work is undertaken through lack of choice. Why is it that choosing not to do paid work when you could in favour of other unpaid work you prefer cannot be radfem unless it's done by a man (presumably if a man chooses to be a sahp when he doesn't have to that is radfem?). How is insisting that women do paid work rather than be a sahp radically altering gender roles? Isn't that just playing into the patriarchal view that being a sahp is demeaning? Wouldn't it be more radical to make all paid and unpaid care work into something as important as brain surgery or building rockets?

I’m a SAHM, I am radical, and guess what? I know my situation is not a ‘feminist’ situation. But my unique financial situation allows me to be with minimal risk, and I’m at peace with it. I would not be recommending it though, or promoting it as something feminist.

I will however continue to (loudly) voice my opinions on assault in the workplace/women in STEM/ the sex pay gap and so on, especially if it gets certain posters backs up

Viviennemary

The trouble is women are not thinking about the years to come. Especially if they haven't married their partner. Now with the retirement age higher there will be women forced to take jobs well into their sixties because they have no pension or very little pension. And state financial provision for single people under retirement age without dependants is quite poor. And their high earning partner will enjoy the benefits of a good pension. Being a SAHP has consequences

In agreement with virtually all Vivienne has said. I’m a lib fem so I’m very much in favour of women choosing to be SAHP. But it puts you in a vulnerable position.
Is it still 1/3 of all marriages that end in divorce?

Oh Jesus. Can't we just respect and support each other? Who needs men to oppress us when women can be utterly shitty and sneery towards each other?

I'm going to write it again for the last time. I said she could be a radical feminist but not on certain issues, such as equal parenting, equal rights for mothers in thr work place etc etc.

I did not say she could not be a radical feminist on other issues

Does this mean only exited women can talk about the dangers of prostitution? Or that only FGM survivors can promote information on the sickening genital violence inflicted on women around the world?

You’re talking shit mate 😂

A basic income has made a significant difference for women in areas where it has been implemented.