Feminism and SAHM

[samoa]

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

Yes. It's all about being valued in your choice as so eloquently put earlier.

I am happy to be a SAHM. I don't feel kept, or dictated to. DH earns money, I look after the home and children. That is my choice andit works best for us and our family. I know my DH values me very highly and that's what matters most. It's a shame that a monetary value has to be put on everything.

I've had it said to me that it's a waste me being at home when I'm highly educated and could get a decent job in the workplace . Like bringing up my children is a waste of my time! How undervalued would that make someone feel if they weren't as bolshy as me?

I think as an individual choice (so at the micro level), SAHM is neutral, neither feminist nor anti-feminist, and therefore doesn't say anything significant about the feminist credentials of the individual doing it.

However, there is room for feminist concern at the macro level. Structurally, the facts that
a) women are often the lower-earning partner
b) working life is organised in a family-unfriendly way
c) women are seen as having the bulk of childcare responsibilities...

...all these reasons mean that it is legimate for feminists to question how free is the "choice" to SAHM.

So in my view, feminists can and should critique some of the factors around SAHMing without criticizing the individual SAHMs.

Thanks Seth, I did read the whole thing.

The context isnt really relevent, I was stating that the sentance came close to how I feel about the whole thing. Although as I said, I am a compassionate person and I realise it's not cut and dried.

If you are not working and your husband is, regardless of whether he abuses you or if it's your choice or not, he is still dictating how you live your life because your lifestyle is dependant on how much he earns, how hard he works, whether he pushes for promotion, whether he pays in to a pension, whether he has a midlife crisis and decided to leave his job and become a milkman etc etc none of these things are in your control and as such, my gut tells me it is indeed akin to slavery.

Totally agree Nickname

What is the definition of a "feminist". i suspect I am not one, because I love make up, high heels and men!!

However, whatever my DH and I earn goes into one pot into which we both dip as we see fit - and as my DH is financially not that great it is he who asks me can he have/buy something (ie if can we afford it) rather than the other way round.

the situation sounds abusive to me; I think the fact that something is culturally accepted doesn't make it less so (just like domestic violence is more accepted in some cultures but is still abuse).
I wonder what these cultures are that think it's fine for the man to keep all the money and never help out at home though - certainly in traditional English working class culture there was often an expectation that the man would hand over the wage packet to his wife minus a little bit for beer and tobacco. There were men who drank it all or kept their wives short of money and that was regarded as bad, not normal. And there were jobs around the house that the men were expected to do; maybe in some families now those jobs (like bringing in the coal or growing vegetables) have disappeared men sit around playing on Playstations rather than helping with the jobs that do exist....

"i suspect I am not one, because I love make up, high heels and men!!"

I suspect you're not one because you're effectively calling the rest of us on this thread a bunch of ugly lesbians.

'What is the definition of a "feminist". i suspect I am not one, because I love make up, high heels and men!!'

those are allowed Amothersplace, you just have to support equality for women. you might be one you know

Yo spidookly, I want my gavel back (obvious penis substitute).

'If you are not working and your husband is, regardless of whether he abuses you or if it's your choice or not, he is still dictating how you live your life because your lifestyle is dependant on how much he earns, how hard he works, whether he pushes for promotion, whether he pays in to a pension, whether he has a midlife crisis and decided to leave his job and become a milkman etc etc none of these things are in your control and as such, my gut tells me it is indeed akin to slavery.'

I have to disagree with your gut.
A SAHM can leave at any time. A slave cannot.
A SAHM, if she has the protection of marriage, will have the right to a share of the money earned. A slave will not.
A SAHM has rights over the children. A slave would not.
A slave, in most slave-owning cultures through history, can be beaten and in some cases killed by their master.

At some points in history many or all of these things were also true of married women. They are not now.

Do you not think (since you are a compassionate person) that you are trivialising slavery rather? Or is it fine to insult the suffering of millions of slaves through history and now by making out that it is the same as not being able to force your dp to work towards a promotion, because your gut says it is?

I don't think it being a sahm is akin to slavery either. But I do think not earning the money makes a person less powerful than they could/should be. This actually has sweet F.A. to do with feminism-just a fact of life.

Actually, I really disagree that money = power in healthy relationships.

And another problem is that while you are away from your family earning money, you lose serious amounts of control (power) over what happens in your domestic sphere in your absence.

yes indeed Bonsoir.
I think there are definitely relationships where the wage-earner (whether male or female) is out at work all the time and doesn't get to have much power over or even enjoyment out of family life.

completely agree with nickname

Indeed. I know that I get to influence the joint decisions we make as a family more than anyone else, just by virtue of the fact that I have more time to research and analyse the data for the decision-making process. And perhaps a brain better equipped to make those informed decisions also...

I am a SAHM because I want to be, it is my choice. I thought that was what feminism was about? Choice? As both DC are at school I spend most of the day choosing what I would like to do and when I would like to do it.

As far as money/power is concerned, we have a joint account where the money earned goes straight in. It is our money for our family. Having said that I do all the home finances, so I make all the decisions about what to buy/what to save/where to save etc.

I expect there are some relationships where a SAHM isn't treated as an equal in the relationship. But there are many working women who are treated like "slave" also. Its about the relationship you have with your partner, not who works and who doesn't.

Obviously, if you have an unhealthy relationship where money = power, a woman is better off working... or perhaps just leaving the relationship?

There is nothing wrong with being a SAHM. Certainly you can be a card-carrying feminist SAHM. But it's not really a feminist choice, is it? Not all our choices have to be, or can be, feminist, but I think it's important to recognize when they're not.

Personally I feel that if you want one parent to stay home, the more "feminist" choice is for that person to be the father, because that goes further towards challenging patriarchy. Of course that may not make sense or be what the family wants! And that is absolutely fine, as long as we're conscious of the decisions we're making.

That sounds a bit shit then: shall I do what works best for my family or shall I make the less good choice because it challeneges the patriarchy?

Bue - no I disagree. It is a perfectly reasonable feminist choice to decide, with your partner, that your best possible contribution to your family life is to SAHM.

Feminism is not, and never was, about getting women to work for money come what may.

I disagree with Bue - I think sometimes it will be the feminist choice and sometimes not. (And much of the time nobody will have a flipping clue whether it is or not because how on earth do you weigh the importance of the personal aspects of the decision against the universal patriarchy-challenging aspects?!)

but the 'challenging the patriarchy' aspect will always be an extra weight in the scales on the side of the women working being more feminist even if it is sometimes outweighed by other aspects.

There is no virtue in "challenging the patriarchy" for its own sake. If you really, truly prefer cooking, housekeeping, decorating, gardening, buying clothes and (most crucially) bringing up children to working for money, it is hardly feminist to deny yourself your preference.

But Bonsoir, some feminists do think there is virtue in challenging the patriarchy for its own sake. (I'm not actually one of them.) And I don't think choosing to stay home to fulfil a traditional female role while hubby goes out to work is particularly furthering the feminist cause in any way. But as I said, that is okay. In fact I love doing a lot of those things you list, and I very well might be a SAHM one day. But I still regard it as not being my most obvious contribution to feminism.

The situations you describe, where a SAHM is told what to do by their partner, has bugger all to do with SAHMing, and eveything to do with living with a controlling man.

I depend on DH to earn our money. He depends on me to keep our children alive while he's out at work. It's a fair deal that we are both happy with.

If a partnership's money is controlled by the earner, then that is not a fair, equal relationship, whoever is the SAHP - and it is unfair, unequal relationships that are incompatible with feminism IMO.