Feminism and SAHM

[samoa]

Can a woman be a feminist and a SAHM by choice?

This issue in itself is not unproblematic, but it does not boil down to can a woman be a feminist and a SAHM. There are related questions that would yield a more diverse set of views I'm sure. FWIW I don't see everyone agreeing with each other, but I do see it being discussed through the commonality of a feminist lens.

I have had this discussion once before on a forum that got very nasty and it was essentially self defined anti-feminists saying that feminists shouted at them in the streets for being SAHM. I could never get to the bottom of how they knew they were feminists, and explained it didn't tally with what I had heard expressed by feminists. The answer was the tautological 'because they said I shouldn't be a SAHM therefore I knew they were feminists'.

BlingLoving and others, but to be self-employed usually means getting paid in some form or another.
The way I see it the whole sahm thing working best is when the couple agree that each will compensate the other for tasks performed e.g. the man goes to work for which the woman looks after their child- he is paying her via free bed and board and she is paying him by looking after his child and doing the chores so that he can go to work. I am not saying this is a bad thing; in many cases it works well but there is a payment to each other by each other.
And both can hold their heads high and say they are contributing in their own way.
At best this is team work and nothing wrong with that.

I'm most certainly a feminist. I was able to seize all kind of opportunities that women a mere generation older than me could only dream of - I studied in several countries, have travelled round the world on my own, got a job that took me to live in another country, did an MBA, worked in a highly male dominated professional field... and those are just a few things.

Just because I no longer have a full-on career doesn't change my personality, which is, as it always has been, curious about the world, interested in other people and constantly busy making a positive difference (I hope) to other people's lives.

If someone felt there was a contradiction between being a feminist and SAHM, would they also feel a feminist couldn't work part-time? Or fewer hours than their dp and for a lesser salary, whilst living a lifestyle that could only be afforded because of the dp's higher earnings? Where would they draw the line?

Ooh I've been waiting to use a sentance from some research I've been doing and here is a good time I think -

"Such dependence speaks to me of something akin to slavery where in essence one individual is able to dictate to another the manner in which she may live her life; this is an idea totally repugnant to me"

I do like to see both sides, and I know a lot of women who are stay at home mums and i love them dearly but no matter how hard I try to remain on the fence due to my big heart... Having read many many opions and studies etc on the matter I'm afraid this sentance is indeed nearest to my opinion

Although, I guess that isn't a feminist thing.. It's more a human thing.

In the situation where someone is a SAHM by choice, where the couple choose to split the childcare/money-earning in that manner, how is it that "one individual is able to dictate to another the manner in which she may live her life"?

I am pretty gobsmacked by the offensive stupidity of that quote.

where's it from?

or rather, that quote in this context - as if SAHMing was anything like being a slave.

if it is talking about a kind of relationship where the woman dependent on the man really did have no say at all in how she lived her life, then it is fair enough. But not relevant to the modern reality of being a stay-at-home-mum in a non-abusive relationship in the 21st century developed world.

"In the situation where someone is a SAHM by choice, where the couple choose to split the childcare/money-earning in that manner, how is it that "one individual is able to dictate to another the manner in which she may live her life"?"

Plenty of women on MN who are SAHMs by choice are dictated to by their husbands about how they spend their day.

Despite having a full-time caring role they are expected to do all the housework because they are at home and not earning a wage.

In many cases they are not given full and equal access to household money. Many are given an allowance and the man keeps "his" money because he earned it.

There is a surprising number of women on here who maintain that a man should make decisions about how his wife spends her time if he's the only wage earner and that believe that his money is is own and if she's given any she's lucky.

That is a situation that women are choosing, in many cases because they expect to be treated decently and don't even see how unfair their set up is.

I believe you can be a SAHM and a feminist. But MN has really opened my eyes to how many women who SAH, especially those who are foolish enough to make themselves dependent on a man they are not married to, are extremely vulnerable to financial, emotional and physical abuse.

It's far harder to leave if someone else controls the purse strings.

spidookly I think you cross-posted with seth there - she has already said what I would say by emphasising "the modern reality of being a stay-at-home-mum in a non-abusive relationship in the 21st century developed world."

And yes, the behaviour you dexcribed is abusive.

there a lot of things that have changed since marriage was more like slavery: we can hold property, a man does not have the right to physically abuse us, we do not live in a society where the man automatically gets custody of the children.

these rights are not always upheld but they are there.

to talk as if simply the fact that you are not the wage earner puts you in that position is to insult both the feminists who campaigned to have those things changed, and the women who suffered when they were the case.

my post wasn't aimed at Spidookly, in case it looks that way.

I agree with you Spidookly - I think you can be a SAHM and a feminist but you have to be careful about it. Earning money is not the only source of power but it is an important one.

If you are a feminist then whether you are a SAHM or not it's unlikely that you would want to be with someone who would behave in the way spidookly described if you were a SAHM.

Too many "ifs" in that sentence?

makes sense to me Trillian.

I think so but then I would having chosen (sort of) doing just that for a few years

I have worked all my life, took 5yrs sort of SAHM, for many reasons, about to return to work
although have worked from home on/off and studied too

for me it is a short period of time in the context of all my working life
and I don't hold the view that I am being provided for

there are many views on feminism

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that the behaviour I describe is abusive.

Where a woman happily agrees to give up work and has never intended to be self-sufficient once she had children, where both she and her partner expect (in a culture that largely approves the expectation) that because he is the wage earner that he should not have to lift a finger at home or share all "his" money - I think it is a little more complicated than that she is being abused.

If feminism is about "choice" (which I do not believe incidentally, although I do think widening the number of choices available to women is part of it), then the choice to make yourself dependent on a man who may or may not treat you well is surely just as valid a choice as any?

I think you can be a feminist SAHM, but probably only if you're a feminist anyway and only if you are assertive enough to agree a fair division of money and work in advance and build into your arrangements safeguards to protect yourself should your relationship break down.

'I take exception with the view point that women should rely on their husbands to provide for them. It is a matter of innate human dignity and self-respect that one should be able to pursue a meaningful life no matter their gender--something over which they have no a priori choice. Such dependence speaks to me of something akin to slavery where in essence one individual is able to dictate to another the manner in which she may live her life; this is an idea totally repugnant to me.'

here's the context. She's objecting to women being FORCED to depend on their husbands and not being allowed to pursue a meaningful life.
She thinks women should be allowed to work. She is not saying 'all SAHMing is slavery!'

spidookly, I do think that if people are going to set themselves up as a 'partnership' where everything is divided up and one of them chooses to be sahm and other wage earner, then marriage is the only way to go (if this is what they wish to do-not same as saying it's for everybody!) because in event of split/death the sahm's contribution will be recognised as having worth that can be translated into financial compensation.
(I know some would argue that cohabiting sahp's should be entitled to same compensation.
I do not agree. Not because I am a 1950's throwback, but because I simply would not wish to have a legal tie to somebody because I lived with them in a sexual relationship.
It would just mean everybody would be de facto married whether they liked it or not).

I am torn here between wanting to say yes and yet feeling that the answer in practical terms is probably no.

It is very difficult to be self determining when you are financially dependent on someone else. I know many people will say there is total interdependence in an equal partnership but experience tells us that women are all too frequently left in poorly paid jobs having curtailed their careers for sahm hood. My mother instilled in me that I had to be able to earn money if I had children so that i would always be able to support them if I ended up on my own. I am a feminist and have been in the position where being a sahm would be possible. I have never felt able to do that.

spidookly it is not necessarily about the need to be assertive, so much as being respected in the role
the idea of being dictated to and monitored on spending or whatever is frankly odd