is it possible to be a sahm and a feminist?

[lottielou39]

I've had periods of being a sahm, and am now (after working for the past few years) returning to the role of sahm. For many reasons, but mostly because managing the care of three small children is a logistical nightmare and because I love being there for them all the time without having to juggle work around them. I've no issue with using childcare because I've done so in the past quite happily, but childcare times 3 (one of whom is a small baby) is not easy.
I've found the working situation harder now my eldest two are getting to the age where holiday clubs no longer accept them, but they're still too young to be left home alone all day. So after much thought, I've realised that I need/want to be a sahm again and my husband supports this 100%.
In the past, I've had women tell me that:

1. you need to earn your own money for self esteem/independence etc.
2. only women without degrees/careers stay at home. I've spoken to a few feminists about this online in the past and the feeling I get is that whilst they support a womans right to choose to stay at home (if she has this luxury) it's never a choice they'd make because it would conflict with their ideology. What do you think?

I am a SAHM. My DH does not possess the skills I do. He is good at childcare and basic home running but not the endless battles with school, the LA and other organisations wrt my ds' SN.

We have separate accounts. When mine is empty I ask him ti put some in. There are no restrictions on how I spend it.

I have the lions share of 'nurturing'. I'm not especially good at that tbh but believe that a woman can be a feminist and take pride in her role as nurturer, as she can as birther and breastfeeder. Just because it is undervalued in society doesn't mean it has to be by her or her family.

DH is slightly jealous of my role as nurturer and overall is probably better at it, but our relationship consists of compromises on both sides.

It is neither his, nor my fault that society is organised in a way that means he can earn more than me, nor that due to DS SN and absolute disdain for disabled people in this country means finances are such a critical aspect of our arrangements.

I think wages for housework would be a completely retrograde step. The idea of husband as employer, wife as domestic servant is not going towards equality at all. Household income should be shared.

I think the equality and reciprocity in parenting we should be looking for is the idea that either parent can SAH and that the roles can switch. So one year one may SAH, the next the other and then they may both work and share household roles.

I don't disagree that household income should be shared. However, I think it should be more formal than relying on trust. We have no problem, once a relationship breaks up, to legally apportion each party 50% of the assets (assuming marriage/civil partnership). Rather than waiting for the relationship to fail before applying this rule, I think it would benefit a lot of people if it applied while the relationship was ongoing. As it stands, we have thousands trapped in unhappy lives, fearful about how they'd cope financially if they tried to leave, all because they are 'kept short' by controlling, wage-earning partners.

I don't like the idea of the husband (or whichever partner works outside the home) paying the wife (or whoever looks after the children). I agree it'd be a fucked up dynamic.

What I would love to happen (but it is draconian and not everyone's choice so would have to happen as a social convention not a law!), would be when you get married/have children, you get a joint account, into which all the earnings go, and to which both partners have cards. I think it is the simplest way and the only fair one.

'To be wholly financially dependent on a man on the shaky basis of 'love' is something any self-respecting feminist would avoid.'

I'm sorry, but that's total bollocks.

Presumably any self-respecting feminist will have chosen a partner who respects her and treats her with dignity, thus avoiding the perils of financial abuse. I don't think basing one's relationship dynamics on the fact that many other women are financially abused makes any sense.

DH and I have done what Himalaya suggests, alternating SAH duties with paid work; this summer we might both go part-time. It's a fantastic arrangement that I wish more people could or would do, as it's given us a real sense of equality and opened up a lot more options.

Why should we pay each other to stay home? Surely it's simpler to just respect and value the work the other person is doing? Just because society doesn't value unpaid work, it doesn't mean you have to continue that attitude within your own four walls.

"a joint account, into which all the earnings go, and to which both partners have cards"

I've done this before and the spendthrift I was married to was quite capable of emptying the account as fast as I could fill it. In the years since, I've come across so many women who have had exactly the same experience or worse that I think we need more than an informal arrangement that relies on people behaving responsibly and honourably. It's not 'paying the wife'.

Cogito you would like our arrangement then. We own our business, DH does the work for it and I am a SAHM - which is each of us doing the role we are best suited for. Because we own the business 50/50 half the profits come to my account each month, half to DH's. Then we both put money into our joint account to use for family expenditure/bills etc.

I would hate the idea of being 'paid' to be a SAHM though, bit odd.

"Presumably any self-respecting feminist will have chosen a partner who respects her and treats her with dignity, thus avoiding the perils of financial abuse."

That's an inaccurate presumption. I've seen other cases where strong, independent women choose partners who they think measure up on the respect and dignity scale.... only to find that once they stop earning, they are suddenly treated with contempt.

cogito, I do see your point, but I think that has to be a separate issue. Basically, if you are married to a spendthrift who doesn't respect you enough to leave money in the account, there is already a big problem which would exist even if you both worked outside the home and had no children, surely?

Yes it's possible.

@Alibaba... that's a good arrangement and I think you'd have a similar arrangement if it wasn't your business generating the income. It wouldn't be 'paying' you.

@DoomCats... if both parties work outside the home and have no children then both have their own income and are responsible for their own accounts. The spendthrift partner can rattle through all their cash but the difference is that they can't spend the other partner's money as well.

So once they are suddenly being treated with contempt, what do they do? Do they put up with it? Or kick the guy to the curb if he won't change his attitude? Even if a man changes his spots, it doesn't mean the wife is doomed to being abused financially, she has options (even if they suck).

I know financial abuse is a huge problem and I have utmost sympathy for people experiencing it. But your argument seems predicated on the notion that anyone could find themselves a victim of it, and I don't think that's true. Most important, not all men would do such a thing. I don't think it's very feminist to tell women to structure their lives on the chance their partners turn out to be twats.

Anyone could be the victim of a man. Partners turn out to be twats all the time. That's the whole point of the divorce laws and I would say it's also a fairly standard feminist position to assume that your personal representative of the patriarchy could revert to type. "Kicking the guy to the kerb" is easily said. But if you have cut off your income stream, are being treated with contempt and you have no cash to fall back on either then you're in a really weak position. Financial abuse means options are reduced.

Cogito in a couple even without children there are things like mortgages to pay, houses to buy, holidays to go on, cars to service.

One partner spending all of their money would still be a huge problem even without children.

Cogito your argument now seems to assume that all men are arseholes.

That is not true.

I don't think it's feminist to think that men are likely to be twats but I do think it's feminist, or at least good feminist thinking, not to assume that prince charming will fix it for you, that your relationship will always be perfect and, as cogito says, that a man brought up in a patriarchal society won't behave in a patriarchal way.

Like a twat in other words :o

'I would say it's also a fairly standard feminist position to assume that your personal representative of the patriarchy could revert to type.'

No, it's not. Maybe some women prefer to think that all men are potential abusive twats but good lord, I don't think that's what feminism is about at all.

interesting replies, thanks.
In response to the poster who asked why I'm giving up work and not my husband.. because he earns a hell of a lot more than me, and does 12 hour days in the city for this. He's actually said that he'd be very enthusiastic at the prospect of being a stay at home Dad for a few years if I could bring in enough income for all of us, which realistically I can't. I know he means it too. He's a very good Dad and works to live, not the other way around. He'd love to give it up. There's no part time option for the work he does and it's well paid, so I think our current situation is the best one for the next five years or so.

Yes.

My argument is that, with a substantial proportion of supposedly permanent relationships breaking up and a substantial proportion of women post break-up living in poverty, we need to protect ourselves financially within relationships and be too naive or trusting.

'not' be too naive or trusting.

Comrade, surely there is a middle ground?

I don't think my DH is Prince Charming OR an abusive twat.

And I do like to assume he's a decent guy who will not mistreat me, because he has never given me any reason to think otherwise.

Yes. Am currently a SAHP. I have a degree. I identify as a feminist.

Some women think that all men are abusive twats. That's not how I understand feminism.

For me, feminism means having choice regardless of gender. So, in the SAHP situation, it is not automatically assumed it will be the woman who stays at home, but will be decided on what is most practical and what works for an individual family, as you describe, lottielou. Then, in practice, the SAHP should be respected as contributing to the family equally to the working parent - the family could not continue without the contributions of both.

However, by not assuming that women will just give up work and stay at home to lead a life of drudgery, it is grossly unfair to then assume that every man is a twat. Just like women aren't all the same, neither are all men.