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.

And that's what we ( or at least I) are arguing about - the fact that it should have value regardless of the fact that it involves no money. And children should be valued more. And families should be valued more. So that it would be possible to have children and for them to fit into your life and you to fit into theirs, rather than giving up everything for them or having childcare and guilt issues whilst trying to do work ( as it looks like now) and raise children.

Purits,
When I say valued, I do not mean simply money.
The attitude of measuring everything only in money is one of the problems of our society. When we measure it like that, disabled and sick people are useless, nurses and paid carers are almost useless and the most valuable people are golfplayers, footballers and some investment bankers.

And if carrier (and therefore finances, and pension provision) of the career are their own problems, why not medical care and education?
Or would you argue that parents should pay for med care for their children and find ways to educate their offsprings- surely, it was their decision to have them? And if they can't, they should not have children...

Viz the sacrifices men make in missing out on children's childhoods - they're not rushing to change the status quo are they?

If they as a group demanded paternity leave, part time work and more work life balance, we'd get it. Because women are demanding it too. So how comes it isn't a major political demand, why aren't men complaining more to politicians about all these sacrifices they're making and making this an election issue?

flamingo. I'm a second wave feminist: I think that we should have equality of opportunity. I do not believe that feminism means 'choice'.

Money is merely a way of putting a value on a scare commodity. SAHP and carers nurses aren't scarce and only give happiness to a few people at a time. Very good sports people are scarce but can give happiness to millions at a time. It's basic economics that the latter will get paid more than the former.

As I said before, if the State was going to pay you to give birth and raise the next generation would you be happy for them to instruct you on when and how many?

Yes, but why should SAHMs be penalised? We lose a sizeable chunk of pension and have to accept financial insecurity in order to raise our families.

I'm not saying those who "choose" to be SAHMs should be rewarded. But why the hell should they be punished for looking after their children?

I am not saying the state should employ sahps, so your question does not apply.

What about my question re med care and education?
Why should the state pay, or should the parents?

I think that's where we're at odds purits - if you accept the structure of society as it is at the moment, then you accept inequality. By definiition, raising children under capitalism is never going to be valued because it's invisible and doesn't show up on the GDP figures.

And if top sports people bring happiness to millions, well, we must leave in a happy world! Then yes, there's nothing else to change :)

Yup, I accept inequality. As in I accept that it exists. To pretend otherwise is theoretical never never land.

niceday: don't know what the answer is. I don't want everything money-led because that leads to devil-take-the-hindmost. Neither do I want communism. We need somewhere in the middle but the question is 'where?'. If you ever solve that then you will get a Nobel prize and a sainthood.

I certainly do not want communism either :)

And I do believe things can be improved, but don't have a plan yet

So you accept inequality based on sex then and don't believe it can ever be eradicated?

How does that square with calling yourself a femnist? What strand is this?

Purits, no I do not want the state to pay me to be a sahp. It doesn't pay me to educate my children and I'm glad they don't do either. I totally reject state interference in private lives. But a capitalist, patriarchal society can never afford true equality to women, which would include the valuing of all work, whether it's highly paid, high profile, or not.

Which is why I'm learning that I probably am a radical feminist. Only a complete overhaul of society would achieve what I would like to see. In the meantime, I will have to settle for very, very painfully slowly trying to change attitudes one by one.

No. Not inequality based on sex. Inequality based on ability or aptitude, or lack of.

I think even without a radical restructure of patriarchal society (which I am not adverse to).....I think a lot can be done about recognising the worth of SAHP's. As a full time working single parent, I have no doubt about their financial value. I pay for full time nursery care, an au pair and a two hours cleaning. It costs loads and rightly so.

I still need to sort out shopping, weekly cook up, 10 plus loads of laundry etc etc over the weekend and I am always behind and my house typically is a state... I could never afford to pay some to do all the activities a SAHP does. Yet many of my male colleagues with sah wives have never considered the financial benefits their wives bring in these terms. This is before you quantify the amount voluntary, other care work.....pta work etc sahp's often do.

So for me it is how we as a society measures success...and making it more comprehensive than simply career success which is very one dimensional. I say this as a person who will freely admit to being motivated by career success. But actually a more equal society would recognise and respect other measures around caring, nurturing activities, building and contributing to the community and society etc etc....career success should not be the only measure.

this is an interestingly relevant article that just popped up on my fb feed.

She says that art of the issue is that mothers, themselves, don't value mothering. That mums report feeling guilt of not setting a good example to their children if they don't go out and do paid work. That mums think they're letting the side down.

From this perspective, is it the very struggle for Women's freedom (or the misunderstanding of the nature of that freedom) that has caused this de skiing of mothering from 'within', as it were?

What is all this talk of mothering. What about fathering? Do you value fathers? Do you think that they need to be there 24/7 to qualify as being a good father?

I don't believe that a child needs to be attached like a limpet to one person: it's not good for the child and it's not good for the person. I believe that it takes a village to raise a child. We brought our children up with a group of consistent carers (parents, grandparents, childcare) and, I am happy to smugly report, it has worked well in our case as the DC are well-balanced people without hang-ups. It doesn't all have to fall on the mother.

That writer is annoying. The phrase 'best outcomes' is also annoying. Kerry, Kate and Katie being voted top mum is due to them being celebs and the type of person voting not because of their contribution to the economy (unless they are celebs because of their money earning I suppose).

What do you mean 'what's all this talk about mothering?', purits? I was referring to the article, which was talking about mothering. Sorry if that's difficult for you to understand.

I think the whole thread has made it clear we're talking about sahps, not just mothers. But it mostly is mothers who do it, which is why it's a feminist issue, IMO.

But the point she's making, pomme, that sahms themselves don't value their work, is interesting and relevant. Not sure why a writer being annoying comes into it.

My opinion has been lined out already. I don't think sahp should be praised by the state or anyone else for that matter only the working parent. That is why I said about child maintenance avoiding being a criminal offence. To stop parents avoiding paying it. If the working parent doesn't pay for you and your children financially then you should consider leaving them and the state will provide for you and you can claim child maintenance. If you want to go back to work pay for childcare and go back to work. Most employers offer childcare vouchers etc to help you out with this. They also offer flexible working.

"regard it as a giant triumph of feminism that I had that choice to make."

No, it isn't a great triumph of feminism. It's the status quo. Nothing wrong with that but for the most part it was always the female parent who did the childrearing and the shitwork involved so no feminism required. How does feminism enable you to stay at home to look after the children? That is what you would have been doing anyway if the patriarchy had it's way.