Feminism and SAHM

[samoa]

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

Bonsoir, speaking of 'vested interests', I can drag out instances in your own life and environment which give you no realistic choice but to be your dd's 'one-to-one' carer, but I won't

Why mean spirited? By implying without a shred of evidence that non-sahps' children are repressed and controlled simply because their carers are not their parents.

And the bit to Blueshoes about vested interest because she didn't enjoy being with her children for long periods of time - as though every mother "ought" to enjoy it. That was mean. Apart from anything else, the fact that some people don't enjoy being with babies for long periods of time is a very good reason why using childcare can be very good for some parents.

Also my children do not get 1-1 care. I have twins, I have them on my own most of the day. They do not get 1-1 care during the "working week" and it seems unlikely they ever will.

bonsoir it's only been in the last 50 or so years that it has been beleived that children should be at home with a parent for the resons you explained.

So the modern hype is in fact that notion rather than that children can thrive in situations whereby they are cared for by extended family, nannies, members of the community, friends etc etc

Is it a coincidence that this hype around children being better off at home with aparent came about as women fought to gain power in other areas...

Almost like... ok, ok then you can vote, drive, work, beleive you are equal to men etc but in order to work youre going to have to leave your children with someone else where they wont thrive as much as they would do with a parent there who loves them... not happy with that? You'd better stay at home with them then.

..and again, women are at home while men rule the world.

The only positive I can think of, and it is valid, is that if you are a mum at home with your child you can teach them about feminism and equality. Teachings they may not receive from a child minder and also certainly a nursery.

But then the question remains the same... can we teach our children feminism from the kitchen sink?

...I don't know, I'm muddled!

(thank god I am at work all day thus protecting my children from my appauling grammer and spelling!)

LadyTremain: "Is it a coincidence that this hype around children being better off at home with aparent came about as women fought to gain power in other areas..."

Good point.

Is it also another coincidence that Bowlby's work (father of the attachment 'one-to-one' theory) came into the fore in the 1950s in post-war Europe where the jobs which women were doing whilst the men were off fighting had to be vacated to make way for the returning men.

There is no doubt his work is valuable (in making the link between severe emotional deprivation and attachment disorders), but funnily enough it also fit in with the zeigeist of the post-war age.

As for its application to modern day parenting, I suspect UK may be unique in embracing it to the extent you sometimes see it used as a stick (on mn, media) to beat working parents. I doubt our continental friends get their knickers into a twist as much about early nursery care.

Thanks for the support, SuchProspects.

I'd hate to think that a parent would have to enjoy every waking hour with their children in order to hold a view about what is best for their dcs. That would be mn gone, bar one.

It may be only the last 50 years since people have been theorising and doing research into attachment theory, but it's millenia that we've been being close to our children until they're of an age ready to leave their parents. This is not new stuff, it's new evidence for age-old stuff.

Blueshoes, thanks, That's what I was trying to say but with more theoretical backup and panache!

I think attachment theory is often misunderstood as are attachment disorders, and frankly quite a few disorders and medical conditions, self diagnosing never a good thing, and people seem to latch on to half baked reports in the press, but I digress

I think most people agree that children having stable consistent carers,and good quality care particularly in the first few years of life is very important
it does not necessarily mean the mother, what is the point of having a very depressed mother, for example, at home 100% of the time?

surely finding a balance that works for all is best, there are enough limitations as it is

for me the reality is I have a few problems with my choice although I think it has worked fine but it was not exactly what I wanted and I do seriously sometimes feel I sort of 'let the side down'
is anyone always completely happy all of the time?

for me it is important to return to work, I have a girl and I want her to see me as working outside the house too, she is only becoming aware that I did have a career before her, she does not remember the period when I did return to work and, I don't want her to think that only dads go to work

I think it is important for people to express opposing views because debate is healthy, but please refrain from mudslinging

sorry for long winded post

Hmm, DH is a SAHD and considers himself a feminist.
Is that allowed?

Whether or not SAH can be considered fair on feminist principles is more about whether each person's contribution is valued.

Based on a few comments above, DH is in a inferior position because I could theoretically walk out and leave him holding the baby with no money. But in all relationships, we have the ability to hurt the other in a myriad of ways - not just the financial.

A healthy relationship has trust and respect, and important decisions regarding money or childcare would made jointly no matter who brings home the bacon.

Sadly other countries are worse than us with AD- in france for example ASD is often ascribed to this and 'treated' with forays into psychoanalysis. One hopes this is passing slowly.

'Whether or not SAH can be considered fair on feminist principles is more about whether each person's contribution is valued.

'

And how much input each ahd into the choice.

if Dh insisted I was a SAHM that woudl be very different than us sitting down with a budget sheet and incomes and talking about it.

Lenin - yes, of course. But the point was, children were cared for by adults who actually loved them and who stayed the same. And babies weren't really cared for by anyone else other than their own mother unless they had to be ie. mother ill/had to be away/whatever. It was mother as far as possible until they started being happy to be with other trusted adults. The point is, I think, that it is emotionally healthier for babies to lead their own detachment from their primary care-giver (whether that's mum or dad).

But it is such bloody hard work to parent like this in our culture - it's tiring, isolating, and leads to a huge loss of income, among other things.

Anyway...this thread is in danger of turning into a SAHM vs WOHM debate, and that's not what it is meant to be. I was just objecting to the 'attachment theory is part of the patriarchy' suggestion.

"I think that it is emotionally healthier for babies to lead their own detachment from their primary care-giver." I completely agree

klein would be turning in her grave.some right ole lentil munching tampon weaving nonsense "lead their own detachment from their primary care-giver"

go do some book readin
less time watching loose women

God, why do you think anyone watches Loose Women?

Anna's in France. Tell me the French don't countenance it there...

anna who?im talkin Melanie Klein not some French bird. who is anna?

*LadyTremaine" said: " Sakura I didn't say 'help her wipe bums' I said he should be the one at home 'wiping bums' "

I didn't say you said "help her wipe bums" . where did that come from?
Read my post again, I quoted you "and dads are at home wiping bums"

I think there are connotations of contempt in the term "wiping bums" in order to describe childrearing

My point is slightly different to Anna's anyway. I'm not trying to glorify the SAHM role, there are plenty of problems that come with it for children. Off the top of my head, a dangerous one is the mother ending up living her life vicariously through her children because she doesn't have her own life. Very stifling and suffocating for a child.

My point is that devaluing traditional "female" work such as child-rearing and diminishing it with contemptuous phrases such as "bum-wiping" does indeed serve the patriarchal-capitalist machine that keeps women down.
In order to believe that those who raise children should be unpaid or the lowest paid in society, we have to reduce what they do to nothing more than "bum-wiping". HOw else would we justify living in a society that refuses to acknowledge that bearing and raising children has real value?

How can we justify paying men thousands out of tax-payers money for bankers' bonuses-- for doing fuck all ,basically, except failing in their job and being incompetent?
What kind of upside down society are we living in?

I don'T think blindly joining the system is the way out for women. THere are class issues.. it's to complicated to go into here.

The main thing I think would help the women's movement would be for us to reject consumerism. As a first step. Whether we WOHM or SAHM.

I did say help her wipe bums, Lady Tremaine, but I didn't accuse you of saying it... I said there often isn't a father at home to even help wipe the bums, let alone do it all

All I know is that when I held my firstborn my first thought was I've been duped ... This is all that's important- how could I have been convinced otherwise.

Then Thank God there were radical feminists about such as Greer or Kate Millet who could tell me I was normal for thinking everything else- all the crap society tells us is important- actually isn't. It's nothing but patriarchy, and consumerism. Those feminists saved me, otherwise I'd have thought I was mad. I'd have thought I was batty for wasting my education on nothing but "bum-wiping"