Why is promoting the SAHM choice a feminist issue?

[HelenBaaBaaBlackSheep]

This kept coming up in the other thread and I didn't want to drag it off topic so thought I could start it here. I'm genuinely interested as I don't see any connection.

To explain, feminism to me is about equality of treatment (e.g. same wage for same job), equality of opportunities, the rejection of a system in which women are property to be exchanged, shared or abused. But I don't get what it has to do with lifestyle choices like being a SAHM.

Jellybeans - what's your point?

I have to disagree with the sahm/sahd argument my mum says that she has never been looked down on for looking after her kids and raising them and now that her kids are older they respect her more for doing it. They only reason I have ever seen anyone devalue a sahp is when they are doing a bad job of raising their children.

"If you don't want to care for them don't have them. Simple"

So should most of the fathers who don't care for their children, because they are working in the cash economy, not have had their children OMG?

The point about raising children, is that it is a socially necessary task. Where adults reproduce, the children of that union need to be cared for otherwise they will die. Society needs that care to be done otherwise it will die out.

The patriarchy has constructed a society where overwhelmingly, the half of humanity which has traditionally done that job, have been economically disadvantaged for doing so. It has denied them a living, constrained the conditions in which they can do that and stigmatised the activity if it was not being done in the constrained conditions set up (marriage to a man). It has then defined that necessary labour as a lifestyle choice, when it's nothing of the sort - it needs to be done and it has to be paid for. Patriarchy has had it done for free, it's been leeching off women's free work for centuries and telling us we're privileged and lazy for doing it. Talk about adding insult to injury.

If they are working they are providing for their family just like my wife does. If they aren't willing to provide for them or care for them then no they shouldn't have them.

But the differnce is, people who work in the cash economy, get paid for their work.

People who care for their own children, don't get paid for their work.

If the couple splits up, the person who has compromised their value in the job market by caring for their children and enabling the other person to provide financially, is seriously economically disadvantaged by the fact that they have done that. When they get old, they do not get paid as much pension as the person who actively went and worked in the cash economy.

This is what feminists find wrong about the system. (Well, this particular feminist does, anyway.) The financial disadvantage visited upon the people who do the necessary caring work of society. The people who go into the cash economy and care for their children by providing financially for them, are rewarded for that provision, while the people who enable them to do that by caring for their children, are punished with poverty.

And that is because overwhelmingly, it is women who do it. You can bet your life that if all men suddenly decided to do what you do omg, the pension, divorce, maintenance and NI laws would be changed immediately to more fairly reflect the value of childcare.

The problem with the patriarchal society as I see it is both sexes are influenced by it.

I commented on a post earlier, both were willing to be Sahp, the women earnt more, but it was agreed that the women should give up work and be a Sahp.

A bit sweeping but,
Man is still seen as the hunter.
Woman as the nurturer and carer.

Both sexes have to challenge these views IMO if things are going to change.

The parent that stays at home gets child bennefit, tax credits, on divorce they get half of the finance in the marriage and they can also claim maintenance. If they can't work they get a home provided for them and rates paid for. They may not be rich but they are certainly not put into poverty. I know some people that still find the cash to smoke/drink have party's etc While being single parents. Also lets not forget that the person who looks after the kids isn't always the person that keeps the kids once they split up with their partner. The person that works is also forced to stay in work whether or not they like it.
Fortunately for my wife she likes her job. If I was working in any of my previous jobs it would be a lot less fortunate considering I hated all of them and was only doing them to provide for my family. Its a choice that you have to make when you bring kids into the world. You don't get forced to stay at home you choose to. You could just as easy pay for your kids to be looked after and go to work. If you don't want to have a commitment to your children and make sacrifices for them then don't have them. No one forced you to have children.

OMG: is your argument that the state should pay a living 'wage' to people who do the caring/domestic work? I can see some merit in that. At the moment, people who care for others (either children or adults unable to care for themselves) in the home get some state benefits, but not really what you would call a living wage. And if there is another adult in the household who is doing paid work, then the state payments made to the carer shrink (despite the fact that quite a lot of paid jobs barely make a living wage for one adult, let alone provide enough money to support a child or children and an additional unwaged adult).
Or are you considering a pay structure which takes into account the cost of raising children? It used to be the case that men were paid a lot more than women for identical work on the grounds that a man would be working to support his family while a woman would be working to support herself or for 'pin money'? That, obviously, was not fair and not sensible given that plenty of men are childfree, plenty of women are working to support their children with no help from a man... do you think people would accept 'higher wages for parents than for non-parents'? And if so, what about those whose working hours are constrained by having to look after dependent adults (eg caring for one's own parents or a sibling/friend/lover who is not capable of either looking after him/herself or earning an income)?

omg you are simply wrong on this.

Just because you know some people who can afford to drink and smoke as single parents, doesn'tchange the figures. Poverty isn't a gendered issue. Child benefit and tax credits do not cover the cost of giving up a job.

Women are poorer than men. This is as a direct result in many cases, of having had time out of the cash economy to do the societally necessary work of raising children.

They can apply for maintenance, certainly, but 60% of them won't get it and of those who do, it'll be peanuts compared to the real cost of raising children.

The people who generally are required to make financial sacrifices for their children, are women. Men are required to make very few sacrifices. There is a financial penalty for women having children whereas men who have children, tend to be slightly richer than childless men (don't ask me why, I have no idea - this might be because men with kids tend to be older and therefore more established in their careers, but I don't know).

And if all the women in Britain decided to go back to work and get childminders, they wouldn't easily be able to make that choice. There aren't enough childminders and nurseries to do that.

I think the maintenance system should be reformed so that it is a criminal offense not to pay child maintenance rather than just a civil matter. That way parents can be locked up for not paying for their kids.

Actually SGB the tax system did used to recognise children as an extra expense. For each child you had, you would pay less tax in that financial year.

Tax credits were an up to date version of the principle that people who had children, should pay less tax than those who didn't.

HB: fair enough. Did that ever apply to people who look after dependent adults?

These men that you talk about end up with no respect or contact with their children at all. I don't speak to my father ever and I normally refer to him as a sperm donor. If I ever see him I will dig his grave for him. Also what does it matter that you are not rolling in it. If you get enough to feed your family and keep a roof over their head what is giving up a few luxurys? Which you most definitely can get the basics and some luxury with what you get from the government. You might not be able to get the latest mobile phone but you could probably afford to get the one before that. Your post just stinks of me, me, me herbex honestly. I would give every last luxury I have up for my kids.

Not only do you get a lot of help from the government but in a lot of casses you are actually better off on bennifits than you are working.

sgb no I don't think it ever did.

omg why are you talking about mobile phones and giving up luxuries at me? I'm trying to have a theoretical discussion here, not whingeing about drinking, smoking and mobile phones.

I really don't think you understand a word I'm saying.

Actually your post stinks of self righteously telling women that they have no right to expect to expect the same benefits as men, for having children.

Men get rewarded with social status for becomign fathers. Women get financially and socially penalised for becoming mothers. When we complain about the fact that that is how society is organised, we're accused of being selfish and self-obsessed and get preached at by people about making sacrifices when the history of women has been largely about the sacrifice of their lives for the convenience of others.

I agree with omg. People who have children should take care of them.
I also agree that this work should not be praised... Just like the paid work. So i understand both should be seen equally valuable by the society. And isn't it exactly what the discussion is about?
Because now they are not.

yep, agree with you niceday.

That's what I'm trying to say, far less succinctly. It seems to me that omg is arguing that the two things are already seen as equally valuable and while that is true among lots of individuals (particularly feminists), the state certainaly doesn't regard the two as equal, as can be seen in the way the two things are rewarded. And not just the state, lots of people don't see the two things as equal - they sneer at childraising and categorise it as skiving.

What herbex? I said all this and I am a sahp so everything I said would have an effect of me aswell. So how can I be self righteous when I say these things? Do me a favour and get off your high horse and stop insulting me because I happen to think that I should be responsible for my kids. When have I been socially rewarded for becoming a father? Oh wait I haven't and I shouldn't be it was my choice I made it now I have to live with it. I have to go through everything my wife would have to go through if she was the sahp I don't get it any better than she would. I didn't know you were so clued up about being a sahd and knew everything about it. I obviously depend on my wife to give me money for bits and pieces. I also think that without my wife I would get on just fine. As I would get more money from the government. I don't think I would have the same amount of money as my wife would but I don't care as long as she provides for our children just as much as I do.

Omg,
I read your argument as : your choice to have children, you can survive on govt support should things go wrong with the earning partner in the family, so what's the problem?

The thing is, if you are well paid pre children, you are much much financially worth off if you choose to be sahm, compared to handing over your children to daycare.
So it's not to have children or not.

And it is wrong to expect your children to support you in old age.

If anything my wife has been rewarded more for becoming a mother than I have for becoming a father with getting a year maternity leave and me only getting 2 weeks unpaid leave.

Do you honestly see a maternity leave as a reward?
I see it as a necessity

Oh fgs this isn't all about you omg. Or me. I'm not interested in the personal details of your life and you know nothing about the personal details of my life.

Don't start getting shirty with me for insulting you, because I will talk to you in the same tone as you talk to me. If you don't want me to insult you, then please don't insult me. I merely echoed your formulation about posts stinking and yes, I do think the tone of your posts are self righteous. Finding fault with single parents being rich enough to enjoy themselves. FGS.

This isn't a thread about how we organise our domestic circumstances. It's a thread about why it is a feminist issue to promote SAHP-ing. That's what I'm trying to discuss here, I have no idea what the point is that you are making. Do you think it is a valid feminist stance to promote SAHP-ing as a valid choice or not? I do.

I didn't say I expected my children to look after me in old age I said that if you bring them up they will thank you when they get older and will always have respect for you. Which atm is what happens with my mum and me. I have a great respect for my mum if she calls me at 3 o'clock in the morning and asks me to come up and talk to her I do even though I know I will pay for it the next morning. When I was working I helped my mum out financially whenever I could. When she needs something fixed in her house I do it without a second thought. I even help her make difficult decisions when she needs me to. I call her when I am not up for a few days just to ask her how she is doing. This is the kind of respect I am sure my kids will give me when they grow up.

Yes I do believe sahp should be promoted ofc I do however the way feminists talk about it as if it is under valued puts me down personally so excuse me if I find it hard not to take it personally. You were trying to put across about financial loss due to looking after your own kids and hwo you expect to be just as well off as the parent that was working. So really what you were talking about was personal wealth and not about getting money from the working parent to provide for the kids.

If sahm are financially disadvantaged (and they are), many will not be able to provide for themselves, hence needing the support from children. (Well, they won't get it if childrenbecome sahps :))

You have close relations with your mum.that's very good, but not limited to sahms, so is irrelevant for the discussion.