Can I wear this if I'm a SAHM ?

[baggingareaunattended]

There's a few tees I like, not so keen on the girl slogan ones as I'm a women, but I like this one and the WOMAN one .. but would I be a bit of a contradiction? As it goes I'm not married, but I'm technically engaged 😬

thespark.company/collections/feminist-t-shirts/products/on-wednesdays-we-smash-the-patriarchy-fitted-v-neck-t-shirt

Flocon - I’m at all not sure your posts do come purely from a place of concern, to be honest. If you are genuinely posting from concern, I have to tell you that’s definitely not how it comes across.

Not just you by any means, but so many posters claim to be posting out of concern on these threads. It’s astonishing that they have no awareness of how their tone and choice of words betray them. I mean, when you post a stupid, bitter article like the one above, it says it all,

By the way, I never claimed to be ‘smashing the patriarchy’ or anything of the sort.

The main issue with it is it's like weekday socks and you have to time your washing so you wear it on Wednesday.

‘a man to work to pay for you.’

Here we go..,.

If I was working Bluntness, my husband would still be ‘paying for me’ by virtue of the fact he earns many multiples of what I earn.

How should we get around that? Separate finances? Live in different houses? Go on different holidays?

I’m just wondering how the real feminists do it. Do they only get into relationships with men in the same salary as them?

It doesn’t matter to me whether you think my POV comes from a place of concern or not. I know that it does and I’m a member of multiple global associations and bodies that actively campaign for equality of women, particularly in the workplace. This takes time and effort on top of my regular job.

I also go to work every day in a male-dominated environment and fight against the inherent systematic sexism of the workplace, on a micro-agression level and more widely.

So I must say that it rankles a bit to hear women who don’t do this, who stay at home and outsource responsibility for themselves to men, trying to claim that they are also ‘smashing the patriarchy’ in doing this. It’s patently untrue - if all women went about challenging male domination by not working and being economically dependent on men, how far do you think we’d be/get?

If someone wants to make this choice, and it’s a valid one (although unwise IMO), then as I said before, they need to own it and not try to pretend it’s an equally valid one for advancing female equality, because it isn’t.

@moch11

‘a man to work to pay for you.’

Here we go..,.

If I was working Bluntness, my husband would still be ‘paying for me’ by virtue of the fact he earns many multiples of what I earn.

How should we get around that? Separate finances? Live in different houses? Go on different holidays?

I’m just wondering how the real feminists do it. Do they only get into relationships with men in the same salary as them?

It’s irrelevant, you earn, are socially active, have a voice in the workplace and are financially self suffienct as to be able to provide for yourself.

Why did you not post an informed, relevant article from one of your global associations for women’s rights? Surely that would be more effective than some bitter rant from a random on the internet?

Why is it deemed more feminist to earn money to pay someone else to look after your own children?
Someone has to look after the children. In most households the male partner earns more due to various sexist factors. So it makes sense for the lower earning partner to stay at home and raise your children with your shared values and not farmed out to someone who has different values.

‘It’s irrelevant, you earn, are socially active, have a voice in the workplace and are financially self suffienct as to be able to provide for yourself.’

No it’s very relevant Bluntness, unless you believe that married couples should exist as totally separate financial entities (maybe you do actually believe this)?

Most families lifestyles are based on two incomes. Over time your finances become one and the same, regardless of who earns what. Yes, for some couples, their incomes may be comparable, but for many this is never going to be the case. It is what it is. So your lifestyle becomes defined by the higher income (in the main) regardless. How many women could have got the mortgage for the house they live in purely in their own salary, for instance?

Surely you can see it’s not always as simple as working v not working? It’s all about context.

Because in doing that, you are taking economic responsibility for yourself (and your offspring) and not making yourself dependent on a man/men, which is hardly feminist.

It only makes sense if the lower-earning partner has their own independent source of income, has future pension provision, is married or has other comprehensive legal protection in case of split/death/ill-health and/or is otherwise not financially dependent on the earner. In reality that is very rarely the case and as we know from this very site, there are innumerable threads from women who end up trapped or shafted.

How many women could have got the mortgage for the house they live in purely in their own salary, for instance?

How many men could, either? Both the male and female partners benefit from 2 incomes, it’s not only a gain for women. The fact that their salaries (probably) aren’t exactly the same, doesn’t matter.

I can’t believe you’re seriously trying to say that a because a women may earn less than her male partner, she’s therefore no different to a woman who earns nothing and is totally dependent upon him. Wow. Mind-boggling.

So is married sahm are ok then?🙄
Raising children is a partnership and a team effort. Especially for those of us with higher needs children who can't thrive in outside provision.

@BelleOfTheProvince

I think that families with special needs are in a different situation. If parental support is the only suitable, then it would be great it more Dads were willing to take on this responsibility and not always leave it to women. But regardless of which parent has to stop working to do this, they should be fully supported by the state.

Emily Pankhurst

Married
5 children
Didn’t work
Supported her husband campaign to become an MP

Today, she’d be regarded by somehow less of a feminist by a number on this thread

It’s like you have ‘SAHM Model X’ in your head and you apply this to every permutation of family where a woman is looking after her kids.

You have decided that the family are purely dependent on ‘his’ income alone. You cant / won’t consider any joint assets they may have. You insist that the wife has stepped out of the workplace and consequently has no hope of earning again. And that’s the end of it.

But in real life, there are as many variations of SAHM as there are working women. Just try and consider these possibilities for a minute because these are common on SAHM set-ups -

1. Some women will be able to re-enter the workplace relatively easily.

2. Some women specifically retrain while they are a SAHM because they want to change direction anyway.

3. Some women invest and manage Suzy you would refer to as ‘his money’ in a way that generates further income. Property is an obvious one. So is it ‘his’ money then, or ‘hers’? (answer = ‘irrelevant’ because that’s not how most couples with a SAHP think)

4. Some families are more asset-rich than others. This can develop over time, obviously and is a resin some women decide against returning to work. If a SAHM knows she could walk away from a marriage with significantly more in terms of assets than she she had when she came into it, then then ‘financial vulnerability’ is not a problem for her.

What not ‘Suzy’

they should be fully supported by the state.
Yeah, good luck with that.
You must know that we are shunted and all but hidden away because we're an inconvenience.
Don't make me laugh.

What a ridiculous comparison!

Emily Pankhurst did all she could within the confines of her existence at that time.

And no doubt she’d be absolutely disgusted that women today are choosing to make themselves dependent upon men.

Well no, my family chose the most cost effective way to raise our family.
Should I go back to earn my pittance just for a chance to say I'm a feminist? Perhaps chuck my child at 'the state' to deal with.

What brilliant parenting advice.

Luckily my DH is a feminist ally so knows we're a unit and everyone's role has value.

What brilliant parenting advice.

Err, you wrote it

Didn't realise being a feminist meant you have to sacrifice your family's wellbeing for the appearance of working for pay.

If that's feminism it's not worth it.

It's the practical end to your feminist rules..

No, it absolutely isn’t

but why use a joke from one of the most sexist, nonfeminist, cliched US high school films?

I mean, that's the point. That's why it says "on wednesdays we smash the patriarchy" and not "on wednesdays we wear pink", it's a joke and rebuttal to the non-feminist-ness of Mean Girls.

@FloconDeNeige

What a ridiculous comparison!

Emily Pankhurst did all she could within the confines of her existence at that time.

And no doubt she’d be absolutely disgusted that women today are choosing to make themselves dependent upon men.

@FloconDeNeige You sound so bitter. It's quite sad to read.

I don't know anyone in real life who would be so blod to state that they think SAHMs are disgusting.

There's nothing disgusting about having a healthy and strong family unit that is paid for by a man.

Shit is disgusting. Puke is disgusting. SAHMs are not disgusting.

@FloconDeNeige

What a ridiculous comparison!

Emily Pankhurst did all she could within the confines of her existence at that time.

And no doubt she’d be absolutely disgusted that women today are choosing to make themselves dependent upon men.

Yes and some women are sahm because of “confines of their existence”!!!