To say loud and proud that it's better for my kids that I don't work

[yetanotherchangename]

There have been lots of threads about WOHM/SAHM at the moment, which frankly are beyond boring. HOWEVER on all of them I've seen SAHMs attacked (either for being naive, vacuous, lazy, money grabbing, downtrodden) etc., and I've seen a lot of SAHM explain why being at home is the only option for their family.

I've rarely if ever seen a SAHM openly say that it is a good thing for kids if they have a parent who doesn't work. I think we are too afraid of offending mothers who do work. Am I unreasonable to claim back some pride in what I am doing?

I think I am a feminist, I'm in feminist groups, go to feminist conferences, and do my arts practice from a feminist perspective. None of the mainly radical feminists I mix with or talk to would say that SAH is unfeminist. What I would say is that SAH is undervalued by our capitalist patriarchy and that people should be enabled and facilitated to do so without being put in a vulnerable position. And that both sexes should expect to renegotiate their working lives, without detriment to their careers, in recognition of the hugely important role that childrearing is.

I don't recognise or support the idea that SAH parenting damages feminist causes or pisses feminists off.

I recognise that if your kind of feminism does not societal structures or norms to change except that women take up 50/50 participation in everything, then you might think women should leave traditionally gendered roles and head for the boardroom, as it were. But in my more or less radical feminism, our society is reconfigured more fundamentally and instead accommodates and fairly values the contribution of what have been traditionally been women's roles, and men participate more fully in these realms.

Really? I don't see that at all, but maybe one for the feminist board. It's an interesting discussion. I tend to think the opposite - that the more child rearing and caring isn't seen as a thing for women, its status may well increase. Not very nice, but my feminism tends towards the pragmatic. The more childcare is shared, the more options women will have to make true choices, the more children will affect the careers of parents rather than mothers and we may see the gender pay gap close a little as well. But I do believe that it only works if fathers are seen as and treated as equal parents, not just by society but by their own partners.

I know I had to consciously separate my physical and psychological recovery from birth from the idea that the child was more mine than DH's because only I could make that effort. Not easy at the time, but absolutely worth it - DH has parenting strengths that I do not, and vice versa, which we'd never have learned if it had been Mine is the casting vote' - and I'd strongly argue that it was a positive act in feminist terms.

Duplodon has put it much better than I did.

I'm not saying everyone should be forced to work like a traditional man in the name of equality. But although some sahms return to their careers after a few years out, while they are gone who is getting promoted, who is getting made partner, who is going to run the firm? MEN. And they are able to do it because their wives are all at home looking after their children! And we wonder why men still run the world.

But sure, continue to say that SAH is not a feminist issue and that your individual choice is totally free (see duploden's post about the pressures women face)

Why is it such a bad thing to wish men were also expected to contribute equally to child rearing (and its a valuable contribution to society yes)? workplaces would be much more accommodating if that was the case.

Lines, we were incredibly lucky that split leave had just come in when DS was born, and we split it fairly evenly. I won't pretend it was easy to go back to work at 6 months, but I'm immensely glad for all of us that I did.

I know many amazing feminists who are or have been SAHMs. I absolutely reject the idea that it's anti-feminist.

Fathers do not need to play any kind of active role with tiny babies in order to be fantastic fathers to their children. Indeed, my DP backed off more and more with each baby and feels (with the benefit of 20 years' hindsight) that the shared roles he and his exW had forced upon them by society was deleterious to both of them when learning to be parents.

OutsSelf- BRAVO!! Well said and eloquently explained. I agree with all you have said- as a radical feminist and SAHM.

Jassy- What's clear is that some women genuinely don't consider the father of their child to be an equal parent, and do want the 'casting' vote on the most significant aspects of parenting. I can only assume the fathers are happy to go along with this (or perhaps they aren't but feel unable to say so...)

Fathers do not need to play any kind of active role with tiny babies in order to be fantastic fathers to their children. Indeed, my DP backed off more and more with each baby and feels (with the benefit of 20 years' hindsight) that the shared roles he and his exW had forced upon them by society was deleterious to both of them when learning to be parents.

Without knowing any details, I in turn find the 'backed off with subsequent babies' to be quite sad. I know my DH is a much more confident and equal parent of a young child now simply because he was an equal parent in babyhood.

At what point do you give up your casting vote, out of interest? And more broadly, I do struggle a little to see why some (not all) men who are already socialised to see childcare as women's work would be willing to take on an equal share of the inconvenient and career- and socially-limiting parts of parenting when it's made clear to them they are the junior parenting partner.

Well my DP is doing the lion's share of the childcare because I am the higher earner. I actually see a lot of common ground in our positions, except I would emphasise valuing childrearing and the other labours of the home that enable adults to work outside the home.

I agree that childrearing should be taken up equally by the sexes not because women's work is shit but because childrearing IS extremely valuable. I know that my DP is as able to parent as me, he took our breastfed baby for the whole day from 8months. I also recognise that he is lauded for his input to our family while if it were me doing his role I would be looked down on, warned about my vulnerability, tutted at about wasting my education and told I was anti feminist. To me, that is old fashioned patriarchal sexism.

Lines - totally agree, and I think it's sad for the individual families (surely I'm not unusual in having a co-parent who has as much to offer as I do) and by freezing fathers out of the parenting sphere, perpetuates a difficult cycle where women are the default primary caregivers, rather than there being true choice.

As a feminist who is also an employer, I think one of the most feminist things I've done at work isn't mentiring, or writing return to work support guidance for mothers, or any of those things. It's making it clear to the fathers who work for me that I expect them to shoulder the burdens of parenting equally with the mothers of their children, including pick ups, sick kids, school plays, etc.

Just sayin,my dp did and does play an active role.He did all the nights for a start.It is constantly argued that wm are still parenting,well sorry so are wf.

I'm sure there are great feminists who are or have been sahms.

But I don't agree that it's a feminist choice. It's one which is expected by our patriarchal society- how is reinforcing the idea that women's place is in the home helpful to feminism? Why not expect men to split the time spent SAH?

Jassy - my DP is the kind of father that makes my girlfriends swoon with envy and admiration, which is why I am pretty confident in his retrospective analysis of the progressively different roles he played with his tiny children.

He feels quite strongly that his exW wasn't given a proper chance to develop her own parenting role due to massive societal pressure on both of them to adopt "progressive" (for want of a better word) roles.

Petit, who's arguing that they aren't?

SAH is not anti feminist because it it's about equality and choice. But personally I prefer from a feminist perspective SAHP to SAHM. The latter rather implies at a the parent staying at home will be female. At an individual level that might be ok but when plural it becomes inaccurate.

I also think this is a bit of an 'only on mn' situation because it is the only place that people generally agree that men are equal parents. I constantly get told in rl how 'good' dh is and how I am 'lucky' that he actually does half of the parenting and stuff round the house . There is a long way to go.

Sorry that was to Jassy's last response to my post.

nice to see lots of feminists here to support other women

Bonsoir, I'll leave your own individual relationship to you - I not know your husband, or the psychology of the individuals involved (but know that many of my friends are desperately envious of the role mine has played with our child since day 1).

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on who is in charge of parenting based on ownership and use of sex organs - and the longer term implications of that.

Outs, I agree with everything you said, especially societal value on childrearing. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.

Madame I DO expect men to take up their share of SAH. I just don't think that would be achieved by disapproving of that role in women. I think it would be achieved by lauding and valuing that role and making sure it wasn't associated with such economic and career disadvantage

Fathers do not need to play any kind of active role with tiny babies in order to be fantastic fathers to their children

well that's true of anyone not just fathers.

I get that some mothers don't have the imagination to see that provided babies bond with somebody they can have one or two or three less involved people who provide a valuable role in their life and have a significant relationship with and they will grow up to be (all other things being equal) perfectly well balanced human beings with a decent relationship with the significant people around them.

I know we don;t want to believe that anyone caring would do and that we are somehow special and unique to our child but that isn't true. Humans are way more selfish than that - babies bond with a primary carer who ever it is because they have to.

It's easier for mothers to bond with their baby than other adults because nature has kindly provided hormone which compel us to do that. Where those hormones are absent it has been shown that adults can still bond effectively with even unrelated children, it just a little longer generally.

Jassy I think that's great that you do that as an employer, wish more were like you!

It is shit that men get treated like a hero for opting in to parenting and women generally get discriminated against because they are expected to do it and it isn't valued by society - yes I agree this is sexism.

Outs - then I think we agree.

There are two things imo women have the casting vote on:

• decisions in relation to pregnancy and childbirth
• breastfeeding.

That's it and its because it is about the woman's body.

It's been a really interesting journey for me, Madame, particularly on becomeing one of the relatively few senior women in my organisation - realising that, while supporting women in work was incredibly important, the most feminist thing I could do was try to change the men a bit.

I agree Kew but those hormones are important,very present in women and shouldn't be ignored in the name of anything.