Is it even possible to make SAHMotherhood a feminist option?

[Emphaticmaybe]

As a SAHM how can I be a feminist if I am not contributing in the work place and striving for greater equality through employment. What do I need to do to make my situation as feminist as possible or are the two fundamentally impossible to reconcile?

SH -I don't think it is preferable to be a businessman than a smallholder

i agree there is nothing inherently better, but the former can mould the world more than the latter. and, its not as though no one will get the better paid job.

if the women doesnt even try for the promotion, a man certainly will get it and so the world continues as it is.

someone once said to me: if you always do what you have always done, you will always get, when you have always got.

It doesn't mould the world more. One person wielding power over four other people means that one person moulds the world more than the others. Five people holding equal amounts of power over their own lives by owning their own land and determining their own future rather than working for somebody else changes and moulds the world in many ethical ways.

To look at another example perhaps more relevant in the UK, I used to work as a homelessness support worker. My manager, in society's terms held more power. She got to tell me and my male colleagues what to do, and she got paid more.

But my impression of her job was that she didn't really do very much at all. She wasn't moulding the world very much at all. I didn't have much power, but I had huge opportunities to mould the world because I got to go out and help various formerly homeless people change their own lives.

That situation happens over and over again with people who work in management. I have seen various male family members get pushed into management in different fields and they hate it. They are no longer doing the job they really wanted to do.

I would say that a SAHM has a very wide range of opportunities to mould the world particularly in her own community. And actually, operating outside of the mainstream economic structure and building networks of support and influence away from capitalist structures does mould the world. It just requires a lot of people to work together, rather than one individual attempting to make themselves more important than those around them.

WTM, I should also that in many ways I do agree with you. The reality of our society is that a lot of power structures do exist, and we can't just ignore them, and women need to participate in them.

I don't want to give the impression from my other posts that I entirely disagree with you. I can see the importance of what you are saying.

Seahouses -I think that to try to have more influence through activism in my community is probably the best way to make up for my lack of influence in the work place, ( however useful or limited that may have been.)

When I think of influence and power I think of the small ways that having women in a wide range of roles has helped me or other women - from the female GPs who have made their practices more baby friendly, to the female police officer counselling a rape victim, and also just seeing women in environments you don't expect, ( we have a female mechanic locally) must help in terms of opening people's eyes to the possibility of non-traditional roles and can surely only help in terms of equality.

Seahouses - I don't think it's just about power as in management, it is also about influence - writing books and newspapers, making movies, inventing things (women register something like 20% of patents), coming up with new business models, having ideas and spreading them, changing corporations from the inside, making investment decisions, making and implementing the law.

A smallholder and a SAHM are quite similar jobs in some ways - both
aimed at survival and self sufficiency of your own family, both come with limited influence. As societies develop fewer and fewer people
need to be smallholders, but the number who are SAHMs remains high...

I agree with SeaHouses - I think autonomy is powerful and that participating in institutional structures is not necessarily as powerful as people like to imagine. In our 21st C society, many institutional structures are fearfully antiquated and creaking at the seams. Isn't it more powerful to stay on the outside and create new ways of living that perpetuating structures that are no longer fit for purpose?

Bonsoir - so it's fine that there are so few women politicians, women barristers, women judges, women CEOs, women getting patents, women running investment funds etc.., because they are outside creating new structures.....?

Except the point we are discussing here is that they are not, they are at home living off the earnings, and bringing up the children of the politicians, barristers, judges, CEOs, senior scientists, fund managers etc... It is not exactly bucking the system.

I think being financially dependent upon a man who makes his money in 'the system' can a. hardly be described as autonomous and b. hardly puts you outside said system.

No, but if one of you is building up networks of knowledge, support and skills outside of the system, it probably means your family unit has more of a chance of coping and preparing children for future society than families that have all adults entirely dependent on the system.

Arguments about the importance of work seem ridiculous to me now that DH has lost his job after 15 years of career building. It can all be taken from you in the blink of an eye.

Seahouses I agree with the statement about nor relying on the system too much - plenty of people are finding that out to their cost in this economic climate -but it is hard to support a family outside the system too. My DH is freelance in the creative arts - it is very feast or famine.

SH - i thought your comments on the power to help people earlier were interesting. a different type of power.

what sort of thing do you mean by 'building up networks of knowledge, support and skills outside of the system'?

I agree with Himalaya.

The reality is that SAHParenting can be a feminist option in certain circumstances such as Himalaya suggests - where both parents go PT at the same time, or at different points in their careers. Where long term rights (such as pension provision) are maintained EQUALLY, and where day to day household donkey work doesn't become solely the domain of the SAHP whilst finances/freedom/choices become the domain of the WOHP.

Unfortunately, and you only need to flick over to the Relationships board to see this, being a SAHM often leads to less choice/financial freedom/equality. That said, there are many WOHMs (especially those who work full time) who have the worst of both worlds - the freedom to work hideously long hours coupled with the guilt of not fulfilling the traditional wife/mother role leading to them working in a domestic role into the night.

WTM, i don't want to propose a set of solutions that are, as one MNer entertainly said, summed up as the Marie Antoinette approach, 'if only the poor ate food from my organic vegan cookery book, they wouldn't be in this predicament. Neither do I want to come across as some kind of survivalist.

But, I think it is worth considering that in my grandparents' generation, work was only one part of what people did to get something out of life. People were expected to grow some of their own food, repair their own houses, organise some of their own education, rely on neighbours and so on.

I don't think the idea of the 'big society' is a good way of dealing with or justifying keeping people in poverty, but I do think that the idea that everyone can solve their problems by the whole of the UK working in powerful and well paid careers is not really an option. It is based on an idea that the wealth of the UK and its global position, the current global energy situation, and the strength of our service and financial sectors are going to be the same for our children or grandchildren.

Where I live, our community now owns and runs our former town hall and volunteers organise the services available there. The community also now owns and operates the local cinema, and various other services. It is a lot easier for us to live here on a now much reduced income because we have services available to us at no cost or a reduced cost. That situation has arisen by people in the community forming connections and support networks.

If you look at some of the things people on MN spend their wages on, an example might be tutoring of their children. This costs thousands of pounds. Some of the reasons for this is down to lack of knowledge of the parents of how to tutor or lack of time - there are other options with this. The first is not to help kids and expect schools to do everything. We can see how that is working out in schools! Another option is for people to organise themselves and have groups like the workers educational association that allowed people to collectively educate themselves and their families in addition to what went on in school. That is what my grandparents did. Another option is to have one parent who does know what to do who helps other parents. So I got DS into grammar school using books, and then when my friends who couldn't afford a tutor wanted to enter their children for the 11plus, I taught my friends about the 11 plus and passed on the materials.

Now I know that lots of people will say they work and also hugely participate in the community, have plenty of time to do various things, but it remains the case that many people do not know their next door neighbours let alone participate in the local community. I'm not saying the past was wonderful (there were some really terrible things in my grandparents' generation) but I do think we have to look at ways of combining economic work with ways of supporting ourselves that don't depend on money. Because I don't think this austerity situation is going to go away, and while DS and DD seem to be keen on recession proof careers, I don't think them choosing to be financially comfortable while surrounded by a society of many other people living in poverty with a much diminished community is going to be a happy society for them to live in.

And while many people hate this section, I've had a lot of support from people on here. And it is a kind of support you can't pay for.

Seahouses you sound like you are part of a really interesting community.

I definitely like the idea of reviving the workers educational association, this would be great to run for parents of mixed ability children at comprehensive schools. From my experience at our local state comp, so many parents do want to help their children succeed but don't feel they have the education or skills to help. It might be an area to look into.

Regarding austerity, I agree we are all going to have to find ways to live outside a system that has proved unsustainable. I feel that my kids are pretty privileged and while personally I don't support the grammar school system, I have made sure they attend a high achieving comp and encouraged their academic abilities. My worry, like yours, is that even if they are successful in a 'recession proof career', if large sections of society remain poorly educated, with no chance of employment, (there are no jobs in the system for them), and living below the poverty line, the chances of a stable, cohesive society are seriously undermined and like you've said who wants to live in a community so divided?

The problem i believe is the idea that it 'should' be the women who stays at home. But there is nothing wrong with being a sahp. It is a very positive thing to do and is just as worthwhile as work. Making money is not the only way to advance the lives of women and fight patriarchy. Sending a child to a nursery that is full of women earning almost nothing doing a job that is only seen as approriate for women to do is hardly feminist.

Interesting point krumbum.
I remember listening to Germaine Greer talking on a radio programme, sorry I can't remember which one. Her general point was that she felt she was a better feminist cleaning her own house, toilet etc than employing a woman cleaner on minimum wage. I don't know whether she would have been opposed to a man, but I think the idea is similar to working out of the home yourself but being okay about low paid female childcare workers looking after your child in your place. Does this in fact help feminism generally?