Feminism and SAHM

[samoa]

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

Bue I read that article when it came out and I've followed the equallysharedparenting blog for a few years. In some ways it's my utopia. But it definitely feels like it's a choice only really available to people in a limited range of careers, and one of the big trade offs that they mention is that it isn't realistic to get to the top of a career in such an arrangement. So from a societal perspective there's still a big mismatch.

On a personal basis, to a large extent, I'm in the situation I am now because I made the (non-feminist?) choice years ago to move abroad with my partner and build our lives to a great extent around his career. I had enough of a career that I could support myself comfortably if it came to it, but I'm not as financially viable as I would have been if our choices had been built around my career. It was a choice that gave me a lot of other things I wanted and I am happy with it but it has narrowed, or at least pressured, our options at this point.

''I don't think the answer is to penalise all parents regardless of gender. I think there has to be a cultural shift that recognises that workers have families and that in terms of productivity etc a bit more flexibility from employers could be useful as well as just more humane. '' - yes I agree

and that nurturing a child is an important job, regardless of who gets to do it

the norms are to do with the system where dads go to work and are not expected to take part in day to day parenting, imo that is not a good thing

also, as it has been discussed, the limitations of choice need to be clear
for instance at present even if I get to the top of what I do (when getting back into it) I will not make as much money as dh, it does not make my contribution any less valuable or the work less worthy, but it does mean, in purely economic terms his job will often take precedence
and in many families the combined income still places as many restrictions to the choices families can have/ make

I suppose I could have had the foresight to have chosen a high paying career which would place me above such considerations but that is not how I run my life

One issue I see is that there has been a transfer of the benefits of children from the family to the state. It used to be that children started to earn their keep and eventually looked after you in your old age. Nowadays parents put in huge economic resources, but their children are not expected to repay that any more. So childless households get a double benefit - they don't have to outlay on children, and so have a greater ability to maximise their careers and their pensions, but when they get old they still receive the boost to the economy that other people's children provide.

At the moment children are seen as something of a luxury, a lifestyle choice. And in that context parenting, even if split 50/50, is not going to be well supported by society.

My DH doesn't 'give' me money - the money is ours to begin with.

It's interesting this empowerment argument. My friend works because she says she doesn't want to be financially dependent on her DH desite the fact that by working PT and paying for childcare, the total family take-home pay is less than if she did work.

Is that empowerment?

No, I don't beleive it is empowerment... at least not in the short term. Although in th elong term she may be more empowered becasue she could support herself if funds were withdrawn from husband.

I know that the view that it is 'our' money is shared by many and I suppose in many ways I am envious of those who can be secure in this fact, maybe it's feminism, maybe its events in my past, but I just can't.

Your partner may not give you money, the money may be yours, but at the end of the day - the wage slip is made out to him. and ergo, he has the control over it should he wish to.

But as I said, thi sis one mere area of life and feminism encompasses so many

But I could support myself if funds were withdrawn from my DH - I'd get back out into the workplace. Or am I unemployable now because I've been a SAHM? Why would that be?

Voluptua - I think it would be difficult for most women because there are so many more people with a more recent employment history who are competing for the same jobs. And because in general employers don't like mothers - regardless of the law.

I think this is at the bottom of all of it. Yes, you would be less desirable an employee (unless of course you have a rare skill/qualification) women who have been out of the work place for years always are. It's sad, but a fact.

So, my point again is that although this is very very wrong; to fight it we need to be out there fighting, not at home. Once all is fair and equal and women are at the heads of large corporartions and dads are at home wiping bums.. then we can make choices based on what we want.

LadyTremaine Your last post is the basis of liberal feminism: to change the system as it stands.

I do not to subscribe to the contempt with which you obviously hold the child-rearing role- "and dads are at home wiping bums"
You have swallowed the patriarchal value system hook, line and sinker.

This line of thinking will never liberate women. I doubt it will gain them much equality, in the long term. Men will always bandy together to exclude women. Men have power that women don'T even know about . Women have been fooled into becoming part of the system by being offered some semblance of economic parity with their partners.

Many women don't have a partner who would be around to help wipe the babies' bums. MAny dads run off, or were never around to begin with.

Again, the idea that every woman simply must be heterosexual, or that a man has to be there to help her wipe the bums, is a patriarchal construct.

I didn't say 'help her wipe bums' I said he should be the one at home 'wiping bums'

I havent swallowed anything, it was a flippant phrase.

Sakura - I agree with what you say.

Many, many WOHMs have to believe that all there is to child-raising is "wiping bums" in order to leave their children with others all day; to believe that children need more than mere physical care (cleaning, feeding and protection from danger) is too awful for them to contemplate. So they repress all feelings in order to cope.

And there are many loud messages from vested interests (in women's economic slavery participation in the workforce) to comfort them!

Is that backed up by any evidence Bonsoir?

How can we be sdure this is the truth rather than that all the SAHM with vested intetrests arent sending messages with the opposite because the alternative is too awful to contemplate..?

Just playing devil's advocate.

Don't childminders provide more than just physical care? They also provide love and guidence.. why must this be provided by mum or dad?

I actually think that having people beleieve that it must be mum or dad is a conspiracy to keep women at home. You know, mum or dad has to stay at home with the child... oh but dad can earn more money... so mum has to stay at home... and there we have another woman at home rather than working her ay up to the heads of corporations... government etc etc

I am so glad I am not the only one thinking like this!!!!

wiping bums...indeed

I think that childminders do provide physical care and guidance- I would be very, very surprised if they provided love.
Why would they provide love for children that are not they own? If we all loved other people's children like our own, what would be the point of having children ourselves?
I am certain that good childminders do provide care and concern (genuinely meant care and concern) but love? I doubt it.

LadyTremaine - you cannot pay anyone to love your child. Only consistent carers over the years can have the shared history with a child that creates true intimacy; and intimacy (shared experiences and feelings) is the basis of solid family ties. Obviously shared genetics, in the form of similar personalities, also contribute to shared family ties, but it is the very act of doing things together and knowing the minutiae of one another's life that creates children secure in their parents' affections.

Men have headed corporations etc for generations safe in the knowledge that their children were being cared for by a loving parent. Women will only have the freedom to head up corporations when they also have safety in the knowledge that their children are being cared for by a loving parent (or perhaps grandparent).

Oh I see. That's where our differences lie then as I don't feel that I want my child to be in the constant presence of someone who truelly loves her to the degree her dad and I do.

I don't personally beleive that its necessary. I would possibly go as far as to say that making people beleive that children need this is all part of the conspiracy but not sure that my opinion is set in stone just yet.

Indeed, LadyTremaine, you are falling victim to the materialist culture that children need to be cut off from their emotions as young as possible. And rather than learning to deal with their emotions (feelings), little by little, they are repressed and controlled such that children only learn that which is imparted by instruction rather than opening up their five senses, exploring the world and their reaction to it, and gradually learning to share those reactions, first with shared feeling and then, bit by bit, with words that become ever more sophisticated.

You deny your children the ability to fully form their own thoughts at your peril (but for the benefit of materialism).

Bonsoir, children of WOHMs are cut off from their emotions? Unable to properly form their own thoughts without their loving parent's constant input?

I think you are buying into your own hype.

Remember that most WOHMs would have spent extended some time at home during their maternity leave with their babies and older children. I'd wager that they have pretty good idea of what being full time at home entails and what their children would be missing out if they were not.

It is not all wiping bums, I agree. But it is hardly indispensable handmaiden to their children's emotional development either.

blueshoes - you, of course, have a vested interest in believing that children do not need one-to-one parental care for the majority of their time in the early years - you have said often enough on here that you don't enjoy being with your children for long periods!

Bonsoir - I have more than one child so even though I'm a sahm my DCs don't get 1-1 parental care.

I don't see how my staying at home is what makes (or not) my children open up their five senses. They do it anyway, whether they are with me, their dad, other family, in a creche or with a babysitter.

Your post sounds ill informed and mean spirited.

Why mean spirited? Saying that children need one-to-one parental care (and all children will get this unless they have frightening numbers of siblings) is not ill-informed, and nowhere have I said that it must be the mother.

IMVHO, nurseries are sensorial no-go zones, but up to you to perceive their inner beauty

Of course- otherwise thre could enver be a feministc arer for example; absolutely males or females can become carers as with SAHP but 50 / 50 means half will be female, no?

Nursery as sensory no ho zone.

interesting.

I woudln;t argue that for a child who is absolutely following a typically developing path where the care is optimum BUT if the child has any sensory issues whatsoever- adn I do not mean a full blown ASD- then absolutely there could be issues. Although a good nursery (I know one with a beautiful quiet sensory garden) shoudl be able to adapt.

Bonsoir: "blueshoes - you, of course, have a vested interest in believing that children do not need one-to-one parental care for the majority of their time in the early years - you have said often enough on here that you don't enjoy being with your children for long periods!"

You are a nice piece of work, bonsoir. I can only surmise you were backed into a corner that you had to come out scratching.

Perhaps you can now trawl the archives for my posts about what my children were like as babies, how they have blossomed, how much more I am enjoying them now they are no longer babies.

Just because I had 2 difficult babies (1 year maternity leave for each) and went back to work means I have a 'vested interest' that gives me no right to comment on one of the more extreme views I have read on mn?