Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

I believe that you can be a rad fem SAHM. I believe in the value of "women's" work. I don't believe that choosing (note the word choosing) to be a SAHM is a feminist decision. But part of radical feminism analysis is acknowledging that choices made by females as an oppressed class under patriarchy are not free choices. Apologies if I'm repeating anything already said

Bluntness out of interest do you have feminist views on FGM?

I suspect you do.

Have you experienced FGM?

I'm hoping not.

As @Loungingbutnotforlong quite rightly said

It is clearly nonsense to say that a person can only have a valid opinion if they have current and direct experience of the topic in question

There are two things of interest to Feminism in the situation of a SAHM.
One is that the work being done for the benefit of society as a whole is uncompensated. That is bad and wrong.
The other is an individual concern for the women and children who are dependent on a man for their well being. The same society that benefits from her uncompensated work provides little in the way of assistance should the man fail in his obligations.
Feminism, the political movement for the liberation of women, has some ideas on how to improve women's position in the world.

bluntness you have given me the rage!
It is clearly nonsense to say that a person can only have a valid opinion if they have current and direct experience of the topic in question. As a WOHM I may be in the trenches of ‘equal pay/ flexible working issues’ but I certainly don’t have the monopoly on having an opinion on such topics.

To answer the OP, I believe you can be both a Radfem, and a SAHM. Yes society pushes for women to be the stay at home parent, and makes it harder for women to be mothers working outside the home (vs fathers working outside the home), but it’s not the only issue that women and feminists are grappling with in the aim of equality. No need to die on the hill- you can be a SAHM and still have valid views on that, and every other topic impacting women and equality.

The main problem with not working is the person controlling the money in a relationship has a lot of power. That isn't true in every relationship but on a society level, men earning all the money and doing all the work kept women in their place.

But what also keeps women in their place is devaluing the role of child rearing. If it was more valued it would be much easier for a SAHP to return to work. The skills it involved would be respected and recognised. Career breaks would not present such problems. It would 'look good on a CV'.

Equally if the role were more valued more men would take on this role. The workplace would become more equal. With more equality in terms of who held the positions of power.

The problem with the choice approach - or one of them anyway - is that there seems no clear reason why only women should have the choice to stay at home with kids or work outside. “It’s feminist for me to have the choice to stay at home.” Does the father of your children have that choice too? If not, why not?
Surely the better view is that families should be free to work these things out free of gendered expectations and pressures.

You're not any kind of feminist I recognise bluntness

No, not one I recognise either.

Dismissing a woman's opinions on matters which affect women generally on the basis they are being supported (although really it is working in the home for the family) by their husband isn't any sort of feminism I want a part in. It certainly isn't part of radical feminism.

While a woman may be at home NOW they can still have opinions on rights in the work place/equal pay as they have worked and probably will again. Even if they NEVER intend to work again they may still have valuable observations on those subjects.

As to equal parenting I would have thought they had plenty of insight on that matter.

The idea of hierarchical feminism annoys me - the notion that I am more feminist than thou on the basis of what I do for a living. It's a nonsense and frankly buys into the patriarchal structure which has dismissed women's voices for so long and under values their contribution to society.

Dismissing women's views doesn't form any part of my feminism particularly when those views pertain to the plight of women.

Assume

Of course you can!

Just because she isn't working, you can't assure op isn't financially independent!

*But that paid employment and the job of supporting the next generation of human race are at odds with each other seems to me utterly sexist. Only women can breastfeed, for example. You have to be in a fairly advantaged position to go back to work and bf an infant. And in practical terms is is ridiculous.

Biology can't be ignored, and it's utterly sexist to try to do it*

Well said assigned I agree. Not everyone can fight the good fight when the odds are so stacked against women.

I do however agree that the notion of women propping up the patriarchy and enabling ‘men children’ is difficult to stomach.

If you want equal opportunities at work and men doing an equal amount of domestic labour and childcare, then women need work. By not doing that, you are not supporting those causes.

I think it is about power not about value. Women have always been valued for reproductive capacity. The main problem with not working is the person controlling the money in a relationship has a lot of power. That isn't true in every relationship but on a society level, men earning all the money and doing all the work kept women in their place.

I think if you are SAHM and you are unmarried, you are foolish.

The law protects women, why would you not protect yourself?

But that paid employment and the job of supporting the next generation of human race are at odds with each other seems to me utterly sexist. Only women can breastfeed, for example. You have to be in a fairly advantaged position to go back to work and bf an infant. And in practical terms is is ridiculous.

Biology can't be ignored, and it's utterly sexist to try to do it

If equality is sought then valuing traditional female roles is part of the solution.

Yep agree with this.

I dont see what is unfeminist about raising your own children.

As a decision, I dont think it is feminist or unfeminist. Its just a part of life

There are issues around childraising and womens roles and expectations of her that are feminist issues, but if you have a child then someones got to raise it, and why shouldnt it be the person that very probably loves it most in all the world, or at least one of the people that loves it most.

I think the problem with the SAHM model is that it does overall make the current patriarchal working set up more sustainable.

So does the devaluing of this role. By doing this it perpetuates sexual inequality. It means stay at home parents are not well provided for, through governmental legislation. Which in turn means it is the most exploited and low paid sector of workers (women) are most likely to take in this role. The devaluing of the SAHP works in conjunction with inequality in the workplace. If men were equally as exploited they would be more likely to be SAHPs.

If equality is sought then valuing traditional female roles is part of the solution.

It really depends on who you ask. I don’t agree with class politics. I understand the argument that they achieve big changes quicker but class politics results in the kind of better that isn’t better for everyone. I’ve a firm believer in maximum freedom for everyone, this obviously include ensuring that all women have the right and opportunity to make free choices including the choice to be a SAHM. As such I can only conclude that anyone who claims to be a femenist tasked with advancing women’s rights but then turns around and tells women what to do is a hypocrite. I think you really need to ask yourself what kind of femenism is best? The kind that garners the best results for the greatest number of women or the kind that ensures that all women get to decide for themselves what is best for them.

Why Bumble?

Why looking after a child is considered secondary?

The law should support both roles.

Until care labour - both paid and unpaid - is counted properly in economic modelling, this question is always going to get asked.

My DH was a SAHD for six years. Was this a feminist choice because he is a man and men are less likely to be the caregivers?

No. It was a purely economic choice. I earned a bit more than he did and he was able to get a few hours on a part-time basis at more money than I would have been able to.

I think the problem with the SAHM model is that it does overall make the current patriarchal working set up more sustainable.

A real bugbear of mine is women who say that their husband couldn’t possibly do their very important job without the full time support of another non working person. Now that may or may not be correct at he individual level. It’s absolutely not necessary at the macro level.

I earn six figures and leave work at 4.30 so I’m home to have dinner with my DS. One of the things that makes this so bloody difficult is all the men hanging around - they don’t give a shiny shite if they miss bedtime and they quite happily waste masses of time in the day then leave late.

The model of one person entirely absolving themselves of Home duties is, quite frankly, bullshit.

I agree with the PP who said that she doesn’t think we should be trying to be men. I think that’s spot on. But the only way to achieve this that I can see is hanging in there at work and insisting it’s done differently.

Big caveat - no single person can possibly be expected to disadvantage themselves or their family to prove a point. So where that leaves us I don’t know!

I haven’t read the second page in its entirety but I tend to agree with Bluntness.
I think we should all at least strive for more equality and for me that means both parents sharing the domestic load AND both parents earning a living to pay for outgoings. An ideal model (I think) would be both parents working part time. That’s what we have done even though we would probably be financially no worse off if one of us was a SAHP and the other had their career facilitated.

I actually think it is anti feminist and counterproductive to devalue traditional female (stereotyped) roles

I totally agree with this ^^

I work. We have a very equal distribution of labour both paid and domestic between DH and me. I would very much describe myself as a radical feminist.

However I was in a cafe earlier today watching a woman interacting with her teeny infant child. I had a pang about how fucked up a world we live in where that work is undervalued to such an extent that typically parents are not facilitated in doing it themselves and instead are valued on their economic value.

In some ways I think it is pure capitalist patriarchy that we are having conversations like this at all. Both, capitalism and the patriarchy, in their own way undervalue women and the work they do. Having principles is all well and good but we all have to weigh up our own life circumstances and see where our priorities lie and I can imagine that there are very few people out there who can afford, in terms of personal cost not money, to make every decision a feminist one.

So if a single mother made a choice to SAH because of some issue with her child(ren), would that be unfeminist? Because it's the State's money and not 'his'?

But a married/cohabiting woman doing so is a chattel?

Yy miralis - if we were being purists I could argue that the woman who goes out to work leaving the child in low paid (maj female) childcare, with a low paid (maj female) cleaner isn't necessarily a better feminist than a sahm.

But luckily we're not purists, and recognise that everyone does what they need to in order to get by, reconciling their 'unfeminist' choices in the context in which they are made

liltingleaf basically said everything I wanted to say.

I also think there's a class element to the whole thing...not everyone has a stimulating career they want to go back to. Looking after DC for me would be more stimulating/give me more freedom day to day than lots of the jobs I've had.

When I was a SAHM whose career was decimated basically because she had babies, believe me I had plenty to say on equality in the workplace.

I'm now working again but earning 20 times less than my DH due to taking a job that fits around my family, all of which IMO is a direct result of living in a patriarchal society. So I'm working but still mostly spending 'his' money on bills and food. Am I allowed an opinion on equality now?