Feminism and SAHM

[samoa]

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

I think that the way some SAHM end up living due to being a SAHM is not a situation that feminists would like to continue, due to the lack of power and control for some women. But a woman can still be a SAHM and a feminist and live a fulfilling life.

In the same way, many women in paid employment are in occupations where they are treated badly, are below their skill set and for which they are underpaid. That is not a situation that feminists would like to continue, but a woman in such a job could still consider herself to be a feminist.

I think that the feminist approach is to acknowledge that their are specific problems that SAHM face in their role, and specific problems that WOHM face in their role, and as feminists we should be looking at ways that we can alleviate these problems throughout society rather than just on an individual level.

'But I still regard it as not being my most obvious contribution to feminism.'

but it's not impossible to imagine it being a feminist choice though is it?

suppose someone was in a shit job with no prospects working every hour there is for some dodgy patriarchal employer like a newsagent selling loads of porn and then when they starting SAHMing they not only get to train their kids up in the ways of righteousness and feminism but also have loads of time to run their local feminist group and stick radical post-it notes in the magazines retailed by their erstwhile employer.

that would be a feminist choice, no?

doesnt akin mean that two things have similar qualities/traits.. doesnt mean they are identical.. does it?

quicklookbusy it doesnt bother you that your choices to spend the day doing what you want to do day in day out are governed by your partner?
I mean, they could (whether it's likely that they would) take it all away from you on whim... If I visualise what that situation would feel like in my mind I just don't think I would feel equal.. which is what i beleive feminism to be. i.e. equality, not choices.

But that's my interpretation of feminism. And I appreciate there are many.

LT, your employer can also take it all away from you on whim if they decided to.

Of course if they did so unfairly you would be entitled to compensation or a redundancy payout. In a marriage you could get a divorce settlement instead.

LadyTremaine,
Well, feminism has never really been about choice. The choice ideology has undermined feminism in so many ways by declaring that women choose to be subordinate, that it's empowering to become a prostitute or pole-dancer because this is a choice (failing to consider that in many cases this is the only option open to many- hardly a choice is it) ; or that they choose to work as the low paid or unpaid drudges of society (as if they had a choice to be born a member of the disenfranchised class!)

But many feminists, including me, think equality with men in a man's world is no liberation for women.
DO you know that there are even some women who believe that if women had no wombs, if babies could be grown in tanks, say, then they would be liberated.
What a patriarchal worldview A person without the potential to bear life is a man . SHould we hold up men as the ideal to aspire to because then we will finally be able to succeed in this man-made world. I think not.
And yet that is what equality expects us to do. To become equal to men on their terms in the society they created, which will only ever be possible by rejecting a woman-led society.
What would a woman-led society　look like? We'd have to begin with a a re-evaluatiion of what society believes is important. Why should the money and power go to those who do very little in terms of contributing to society, (coroporation heads) , and who are actually rewarded for meting out environmental destruction or building sweat shops. Men made that world.

I'm a SAHM (for now, while my children are tiny) because I believe there is value to this work, even if society is adamant that I am a waste of space because I don't contribute to the GDP (although you have to wonder where nations think their citizens come from, or where coroporations think their customers and clients come from )

I think my point is that it's disgraceful that in order to be able to raise my children myself I have to depend on my husband's goodwill. Otherwise I have the "choice" of working outside the home to gain some independance and economic clout but then someone else has to be with my children all day. Someone^ has to be with the children. It's ridiculous that it's considered normal, even preferable, for anyone but the mother to look after the children all day. TO me this epitomizes patriarchy. Neither of those options are choices in the real sense of the word.
To have some semblance of equality with your partner you need to give your children to someone else to raise during the day. Why? It doesn't make sense to me.

"It's ridiculous that it's considered normal, even preferable, for anyone but the mother to look after the children all day. To me this epitomizes patriarchy."

Absolutely, Sakura - I entirely identify with that feeling.

I meant it in the context of feminism. Patriarchy needs women's cheap and unpaid labour , which means it doesn't mind women leaving their babies to do the shit jobs; OTOH it has a problem with women leaving their babies to do well-paid work

so what has happened is that ultimately women's unpaid labour has been utterly devalued by patriarchy

I don't think "patriarchy" minds women leaving their children with other, lower paid, childminders (could be unpaid family) to do any job that contributes to the economy.

What bothers me more than anything is women according themselves more value just because they do a paid job, even when that job is dull/badly paid/contributes nothing to the family once it is fully costed.

If you are working for no financial contribution to your family, you are a mug not a feminist

"I don't think "patriarchy" minds women leaving their children with other, lower paid, childminders (could be unpaid family) to do any job that contributes to the economy"

yes that is true.
It's a very complicated topic, because obviously women have to wrest power away from men somehow and the only viable way of doing that at present is by becoming part of the system.

That's why I think the only way out of this quandary is a REVOLUTION

"That's why I think the only way out of this quandary is a REVOLUTION"

Unfortunately Sakura, if there is one I suspect my head will be on the block so excuse me if I don't agree with you

It really fucks me off that the perception of a SAHM is so often of her being 'dependent' on her husband because she looks after the kids and he does the childcare.

Why isn't he "dependent" on her? If she wasn't looking after them, he' have to do it. But the assumption is always that it is the mother's 'natural' responsibility (even if she is also working, even if she is working full time and earning more than the father)

I work pt. Nobody asks my male colleagues about where their children are, I get asked almost every day that I work.

I think you can certainly be a feminist and a SAHM. I think any mother whatever her work situation comes up against this attitude constantly. I'm surprised it doesn't make more of us feminists.

"A person without the potential to bear life is a man"

I think there's rather more to the female identity than that.

Women who are infertile, or who have simply gone through the menopause, are just as much women are those who have "the potential to bear life".

(agree that growing babies in tanks would not at all be helpful - how about giving men the opportunity to bear children like in that film with Arnie?)

Grumpla, it's financial dependence not total dependence.

There are some fabulous statements here. Flamingo I'm going to save some of yours and squirrel them away for amo next time my DH's pal goes on about my lack of contribution to society.

I perhaps should post this on the questions you want answered thread but why is it considered a bad thing if GDP isn't growing? If we are not growing = we are not doing well? Bollocks. In the laws of physics continued growth is unsustainable. I really wish we could get away from using GDP as a measure of success then perhaps more value would be put on the contribution women make whether SAHM or not!

Voluptua, how would you measure that?

If it is in terms of child welfare, we are really bad at that aren't we?

oh absolutely TBE, housework has nothing to do with the SAHM role
Housework is, in itself, unethical because of the way it wreaks havoc onthe environment, so it should be done sparsely

On a more serious note, I use my spare time to keep my hand in and develop my knowledge for what I want to do once I finish SAHMing. THat is where my spare energy goes, not on cleaning the house. People don't miraculously lose the ability to clean up after themselves upon aquiring a wife and child.

"I think there's rather more to the female identity than that."

I absolutely agree, Trillian but it irks the patriarchy no end that creating life is an exclusively female phenomenon. Men by definitioncannot create life.

And I don't think the potential to bear life is really connected to women's oppression. Childless women, or never-married women- have always been just as downtrodden.

It's nothing more than a handy excuse to justify a two-tier system of domination and subordination.
Just like racism has sod all to do with black skin, but was actually invented, systematically, as a way to justify slavery.

I really do appreciate these other view points but I have to say, I stick with my original opinion.

I'm afriad I have seen so many women beleive that they are equal to their husbands have it taken away. 'divorce settlement? Most get a share of whatever equity is in the house and a measly 15% of the man's net income forcing them to take a low paid menial job)

In an ideal world, if women were respected for being SAHM and werent at the mercy of the man's wage then yes, you could be a SAHM and a feminst. But as it is, I think we have along way to go until then.

Saying that, most of you are clearly very knowledgable about many other feminst issues, far more so than myself, so it would be churlish of me to say I am more of a feminist than you just because I work.

But my entire point has been that in the eyes of society, and on a practical level, I am emphatically not equal to my husband because I raise my children myself

On what planet is this okay?

so yes, basically your third paragraph is the point I'm making:

"In an ideal world, if women were respected for being SAHM and werent at the mercy of the man's wage then yes, you could be a SAHM and a feminst. But as it is, I think we have along way to go until then."

That we have a long way to go, either way

The reason I don't beleive you are equal is because of the power/rights etc he has over you.

I don't think you are unequal in your contribution. ALthough i see that much of society does think this and I can see why that riles.

Crossed posts - yes, agreed.

going back to capitalism, there are lots of anti-feminist jobs out there that women get paid a mint to do. Off the top of my head, working for almost any multi-national corporation that sells certain products, or where those products are made in sweat shops.