Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

How can you achieve this without equal representation of women in all spheres of life,?

Does 'all spheres of life' include being a SAHP?

At least going to work in a male dominated career is doing something different

It supports patriarchal capitalism. Especially if going to work includes buying into the exploitative care and service industries. Especially if it includes devaluing and stigmatising women who SAHP.

I am not a socialist or a Marxist feminist. I believe you can be a radical feminist without being a Marxist one.

"male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts."

How can you achieve this without equal representation of women in all spheres of life,?

liltingleaf I'm not blaming sahms. I'm hoping to change the structures that force most women to do that or go part time while men continue to hold all the power, senior jobs, money and influence.

Good to know. Not sure I would get the same comment from Bluntness, though.

"Radical feminism is all about dismantling the patriarchy so that involves dismantling capitalism"

Telling women than SAHM is feminist is not dismantling anything. At least going to work in a male dominated career is doing something different which has a chance to correct this imbalance vs simply trying to make women feel better about accepting unequal opportunity under patriarchy.

Maybe I can't be a radical feminist without being also a socialist then but I vehemently disagree with the liberal feminist position that SAHM or wohm is a free choice for women, or that every sahms decision to do so has no impact on other women or society, given that the majority of sahp are female.

Maybe, understanding Marxist Feminism, would help define where I am coming from here:

Marxist feminism is feminism focused on investigating and explaining the ways in which women are oppressed through systems of capitalism and private property.[1] According to Marxist feminists, women's liberation can only be achieved through a radical restructuring of the current capitalist economy, in which, they contend, much of women's labor is uncompensated.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxistfeminismm_
_
Marxist feminism can be radical feminism.
_
Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.[1]

Radical feminists view society as fundamentally a patriarchy in which men dominate and oppress women, and seek to abolish the patriarchy in order to liberate everyone from an unjust society by challenging existing social norms and institutions._
_
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicall_feminism

@SweetheartNeckline I guess women in those positions are perceived as doing their best to work and they don't have other options, for whatever reason - lack of training, or education or socialisation into those roles, or discrimination, or needing flexible hours, so they seem as are victims of the set up. Sahms are perceived as having a choice - which isn't necessarily the case (although as lilting said earlier many want to "own" the "choice" rather than being perceived as victims).

@liltingleaf I'm not blaming sahms. I'm hoping to change the structures that force most women to do that or go part time while men continue to hold all the power, senior jobs, money and influence.

I think if a couple were able to look at finances and say "we need X amount of money" and both take a small salary hit and WOH, say, 50 or 65 or 72 hours between them by each going PT it would be great for society, obviously. But the way things work irl would then mean two careers negatively impacted by PT working.

Until raising children is seen as valuable at a societal level, and viewed as "work", albeit unpaid, then there'll always be a reluctance to share the role. Because despite men who SAH or go PT to be with kids being lauded as some kind of demigods at toddler group, in the corporate world where "alpha male" characteristics are prized highly, it just doesn't wash.

Out of interest (not being goady) - would it be a radical feminist position to work as a cleaner (90% female) or a beauty therapist (98% female) or a dinner lady (ime, 100% female!!), as that also perpetuates gender stereotypes and "accepts" low pay and often rubbish conditions as a preserve of the female sex class.

Agree with your first two points but isn't the last one controversial precisely because it's NOT been definitively proven? I'm not actually against the idea, intuitively it makes sense there is some benefit, I just don't think it should always be the mother.

Also in the later years of school actually having one part time or more available parent seems to be a lot less stressful for everyone (I have a teenager!). When my daughter was small she couldn't have cared less about who was looking after her although I appreciate some kids do, however from 7/8 years old onwards I found the mental and emotional as well as my physical availability to be more important- not to mention now there is homework and clubs and trips to sort out (although she basically has had to take responsibility for most of that herself as we are both working - maybe that's a good thing but could be stressful if taken to the extreme).

Bumpity, I wholeheartedly agree with your 4.22am post.

Dione like, Bumpity, I have no problem with this definition of radical feminism:

Bluntness rad fem is wanting patriarchy and any sniff of it removed from our society. It's working for the greater benefit of women to enable that

Well conforming to 1950s gender stereotypes certainly is less feminist than doing this! If you are a ceo with SAH husband at least you are showing people that it's possible for things to be different and for women to do other things than SAH or lie paid work (in the absence of dismantling capitalism and long hours culture which we all agree makes the need for sahp greater)

I disagree. Thing is you can not argue 'in the absence of dismantling capitalism' with any validity, simply because our current patriarchy operates through capitalism. Radical feminism is all about dismantling the patriarchy so that involves dismantling capitalism where, as in our current patriarchy, it is the system patriarchy operates by.

But "valuing" SAHM work is a bit woolly - what does that actually mean? I think the best example was the contract discussed up thread. I would be very worried about simply sending the message that SAH is a great thing to do without the proper protections, and without simultaneously making sure that women have equal career opportunities in male dominated areas.

Equally I'm very wary of sending the message working in a male dominated areas is the best thing to do in terms of radical feminism, whilst simultaneously devaluing the role of SAHM and stigmatising a whole sector of women to boot, making their career prospects, should they want to return to work, worse.

Radical feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy. In our society that is capitalist patriarchy. So why are SAHM's being blamed for it? They are not the oppressors nor are they capitalists.

Economics always wins out in the end. There are more women going through the university system; probably in another generation it will just be the case that the lower earner (regardless of sex) stays at home or takes the "secondary" job which deals with all the school pick ups/days off etc. And then it becomes "parents" rather than "mothers" (as a pp said) who become the problem for employers.

I don't think it should be paid by the governent either, but I definitely think it's a function of the current patriarchal system that the assumption is that anything worthwhile should be paid otherwise it isn't valuable.

I do think, similarly to the contract idea, that both parties involved in deciding if someone should stay at home should benefit and be burdened by this decision as equally as possible. This should involve greater protection and rights for SAHPs whilst in relationships and if the relationship was to break down a fair settlement for both ensuring that any long term financial benefits the WOHP had gained over the SAHP through this setup have been accounted for. This could have very serious, long term implications for the WOHP's financial situation and would also impact things such as pension much more than is currently the case.

This would effectively make both the working and non working partner realise the cost of one partner staying at home and thus if they choose to still go ahead with the arrangement will prove the perceived value of this choice to both parties rather than it being the short term easy choice.

More broadly I think society needs to be re-educated about what staying at home with kids is actually like. There is still a perception (I know because I used to have it) that being at home is easy peasy compared to being at work. I have a toddler and baby and can assure you that this isn't the case. Everyday is challenging and I can honestly say I am being tested much more in terms of resilience and juggling activities than I was when I was a reasonably senior employee, yet a good chunk of society views me as having it easy. This doesn't help when you try and go back to work and people think you have been up to nothing much for a period of time.

Another form of providing value to the role is acknowledging that there is a scientifically proven benefit to the children of a parent being at home with the children in the initial years. I know this is controversial and I really do not mean this as an attack on WOHMs, it's more that being a SAHM is always framed as someone leaning out of the workforce rather than leaning in to being at home. This again helps to eradicate the attitude that SAHMs are just lazy and that there is a reason why both parents wouldn't both just work and put their kids in childcare. I'm reluctant to mention this last point as I really really don't mean to be offensive but I guess it's the flip side to the whole 'i work out of the home to provide a good role model for my kods' argument. Ultimately we all do what we think is best for our kids and being a SAHM should be seen as a valid choice you can make in the pursuit of this goal.

I had a debate about this with a senior corporate man irl. He said his wife feels looked down on by other women as women are now expected to go and earn "their own money" and that society doesn't recognise the contribution she makes to their family. He was adamant that this means wohm are less discriminated against and that we have the better deal these days. He refused to hear that we experience bias too.

Until I gave the following example (this really happened): in our industry there was a man who had made millions in a really successful company and it had gained great momentum until one day after his baby daughter was born prematurely his priorities changed and he simply sold the company and retired to spend more time with his family. Industry people were all so shocked and dismayed that he had given up at the sweet spot of his work (even though he didn't need the money!).

At the same time there was a female fund manager (rare as hens teeth) who had achieved great success but after rising through the ranks and having her own fund realised that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze and changed career to have a better work life balance. No one was shocked. No one said what a shame. Everyone said of course, she wants to spend more time with her family! It was almost like they were relieved she was doing what women are expected to do.

It's always easier to conform.

And I'm opposed to simply paying the role for the reasons given a couple of posts ago.

I agree that those industries should be paid better. But "valuing" SAHM work is a bit woolly - what does that actually mean? I think the best example was the contract discussed up thread. I would be very worried about simply sending the message that SAH is a great thing to do without the proper protections, and without simultaneously making sure that women have equal career opportunities in male dominated areas.

Increasing the value of women's work would also help your aim. If women's industries were paid better they would be much less likely to be the secondary earner and the career sacrificial lamb. Also if the SAHM role was valued then women wouldn't be so heavily penalised for having a break to look after their kids and thus would find it much easier to resume fulfilling careers and continue the ascent to more senior roles.

I really worry that for example the government paying sahms as a policy would reduce opportunities and choice for women and simply mean we are even less represented in work outside the home. It wouldn't mean men rush to do the job. But if you had more higher earning women in work then suddenly it's not such a clear cut decision anymore about who stays home.

@Bumpitybumper "you can't literally force men to take on roles they don't want to do"

I'm not suggesting nanny state etc. But if more women took on senior roles in business and politics it would simply be more normal for their partners to be the secondary earner. So my method would be to do everything to help girls and women achieve career success and not drop out, while at the same time making sure there are the right kind of positive reward policies in place (eg properly paid paternity leave such as in Sweden) to reduce the barriers to men taking on that responsibility

Just to be clear I DO think we should be better represented in senior positions and in politics

Unfortunately sahd are less likely to facilitate wohm in the same way - due to socialisation - women who work still tend to do more domestic chores. In general. That's kind of another discussion but it's a hard one to combat.

"there are several examples on this thread, my own included, where being a SAHM has not created a facilitated partner. "

The exception that proves the rule. Also I mentioned upthread about earning power and the slippery slope of facilitation which is all too easy to fall into despite the best intentions

Grumpy of course I don't think that women should only be able to access female dominated industries and we should be better represented in politics and in senior positions in businesses. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that some industries are undervalued because women have traditionally dominated them. Yes we could all rush to enter the better paid and respected male dominated industries or we could fight for better recognition of traditional female work. In reality I would probably like to see a bit of both, but I think until the latter is done properly then we will still be dancing to the patriarchy's tune.

I know what you're saying about trying to shortcut a way to add value to these roles through getting men to do them but you can't literally force men to take on roles they don't want to do. Even if in a nanny state this was possible, this would soon build up a heck of a lot more resentment than them paying more etc for women's work. To get men to want to take on these roles you have to make them more attractive and comparable to traditional male roles and not stigmatised by society.

"employer demands a higher level of commitment from an employee who wants to advance. Any employee who can't make that commitment for whatever reason, whether because they're a mum or something else, will not be promoted to a top level job."

@Bellamuerte you're right but let's say that suddenly working fathers AND working mothers are facing career disadvantages and discrimination... I bet society would give more of a shit! And we'd have a better chance of policies that actually change corporate culture.

"The culture needs to change rather than laying the blame on women choosing to be at home with their kids."

Yes and more men going part time / SAH for a period is a way to change that culture. As Dione said, employers' attitudes would have to change - currently it's too easy for them to disregard women but "parents" / potential parents is a much bigger % of workers.