Not feminist enough if you're heterosexual.

[TheRealPosieParker]

This is something I've found repeatedly lately. Frankly I'm fucked off with it. In last few weeks I've been called a breeder, that I have shitty kids, that I spewed my kids from my arse, that I'm a handmaiden.

FFS. I may as well just abandon feminism as actually men so treat me better, on a personal level, than many feminists.

What sort of feminism decides that heterosexual women are deserving of this vitriol? That mothers are all a bunch of handmaidens? That wearing make up is more anti feminist than telling a mother her kids are shitty?

Every time it happens I am genuinely shocked.

If rad feminism is the movement to restructure society through abolishing social and economic patriarchy then I guess no, the SAHM model is not compatible with this.

The problem is - what would be a better alternative?

A push for greater emphasis on part-time work or partners alternating phases of work would not necessarily mean greater freedom for women (or men) if it just introduces more complexity and day-to-day hassle.

If women want to raise their children, to then this is the most natural instinct in the world. No they are not contributing economically, but it is very possible for two partners to work out a financial contingency plan for the event of a separation. Equally, if you don't want to be a SAHM - don't do it. Both models are equally valid for children as long as both partners are honest about what they actually want.

How can choosing to leave the paid labour market in order to do unpaid work that benefits their DP

How is it unpaid work that benefits their husband?

Are you suggesting they and their children get nothing out of it?

It is unpaid work in that they are not paid for it. SAHMs and children may indeed benefit from it. But this benefit is at the discretion of the man whose wages make it happen. While marriage provides some protection for women, if the man decides to take his wages and career and leave (especially once the children become adults), the woman is left at a disadvantage having spent a decade or two out of the employment market doing all or the bulk of cooking, laundry, cleaning, admin and childcare in a traditional, patriarchal family set up.

Amaia, that is my understanding of radical feminism. I may be wrong as I am not a radfem, I'm one of the choosy-choice liberal feminists.

If rad feminism is the movement to restructure society through abolishing social and economic patriarchy then I guess no, the SAHM model is not compatible with this.

For a radical lesbian feminist, being a SAHM could be consistent - as long as the mother is staying at home in a lesbian commune or something. It is the living with, and having sex with men that causes an issue for political lesbians. They believe men are parasitic drains upon the energy of women and a woman cannot become whole in herself until she rejects the peen I think.

How can choosing to leave the paid labour market in order to do unpaid work that benefits their DP

Because they're doing it to benefit themselves and their children? And, in the case of one woman I know, in order to free up time to be able to pursue her activism around how the unpaid care work done by women is viewed as basically having no value by much of society. Which is partly perpetuated by people saying that people who are SAHP are in some way letting the side down.

If rad feminism is the movement to restructure society through abolishing social and economic patriarchy then I guess no, the SAHM model is not compatible with this.

See above

Fuzzy, it is not just political lesbians who claim that men are a drain on women's energy. There are posts upthread from radfems in heterosexual relationships that say the same thing.

Xenophile, I don't think that women who are SAHMs are letting women down. I think that women should be free to make the choices that are best for them. I am sure that your friend does great work in challenging how society sees unpaid wife work. But to my understanding, radical feminism seeks to completely dismantle the patriarchal structures of society. One of which is the family system in which children are raised with the view that mums do women's work and dads go out to work.

Radical feminism aims to end the patriarchal structure that causes caring work not to be paid and valued.

It is not opposed to SAHMs at all.

It is often a minority of liberal feminists on here who think SAHMs are a problem.

I've just realised that I have spent the afternoon arguing that women choosing to be SAHMs disproportionately benefit the men who work to earn. Do radfems not believe this?

"I've just realised that I have spent the afternoon arguing that women choosing to be SAHMs disproportionately benefit the men who work to earn. Do radfems not believe this?"

Feminists generally recognise that 'choice' does not happen in a vacuum and that context is incredibly important. Maybe radical feminists recognise this more or are more empathetic with it? But as is clear from this thread radical feminists aren't a homogenous mass. They have different priorities and even different beliefs about certain things.

But I agree with almond and Buffy in that women and childcare are often (and IMO should be) at the centre of feminist ideology, and especially radfem. Women are oppressed because of their biology. Because they bear children. How could that not be central? Why would we as feminists want to kick women for living their biology and want to raise children in a way they see fit? There are plenty of other people intent on controlling women and how and why they should reproduce. We don't need to add to it.

But the oppression of women doesn't occur because of the choices women make. It occurs because of the choices men make as the oppressor class.

"I've just realised that I have spent the afternoon arguing that women choosing to be SAHMs disproportionately benefit the men who work to earn. Do radfems not believe this?"

I think it is a bit more complex. All rigid gender stereotypes including divisions of labour disproportionately benefit men as a group over women as a group, because they serve to uphold male domination.
When following the gender script, women waste their energies in domestic drudgery and are demeaned by marital servitude and disempowered by economic dependence. Men are liberated by not having to arrange childcare (though still get to be a parent), are bolstered by having a 'housewife' (domestic servant), and have social and political influence as well as economic power through being in paid employment.

I really don't think radfems think that all mums must be in paid employment. Some think women should be paid by the state to do childcare and that there should be unlimited free childcare for all. But their overall wish is for women to be liberated from male domination - in what ever form it takes.

Dione
"Fuzzy, it is not just political lesbians who claim that men are a drain on women's energy. There are posts upthread from radfems in heterosexual relationships that say the same thing."

I was thinking more about the OP - calling heterosexual women 'breeders', 'handmaidens', etc. It would only make sense for political lesbians/radical lesbian feminists/lesbian separatists to express those views - oh and of course antifeminists posing as the above.

I've just realised that I have spent the afternoon arguing that women choosing to be SAHMs disproportionately benefit the men who work to earn. Do radfems not believe this?

I've no idea what radfems believe. I'm not persuaded by the argument that behind every succesful man.... nor that stay at home mothers get nothing or very little out of the arrangement. I can think of several who are doing very well out of it.

I'm still not sure what realistically you want to do about this. The most sensible answer is indeed some sort of state funded wages for housework. By sensible I mean , it addresses the question, not that I personally would support it.

The other solutions are smash the patriarchal system /liberate women from the patriarchy - and replace it with what?

A system where all parents will go on to some sort of part time / job sharing work immediately on becoming parents?

The state tops up their income?

The notion that one leaves the home and goes somewhere else to 'do work' is fairly recent, industrial revolution phenomenon

I'm not sure that is relevant. In a rural situation women and men would both have been working. You grew or made or caught or reared what you needed. In a poor urban situation women still worked outside the home.

For myself it never occurred to me not to work full time. I've never relied on my husband's salary , nor him on mine.

"smash the patriarchal system /liberate women from the patriarchy - and replace it with what?"

You could pose this same question to all radical politics.

Some radfems overlap with the anarchist movement, some with eco-warrior culture, some communism, etc.

But it is also a simplistic question. For example - one of the pillars (pardon the innuendo) of patriarchy is male sexual entitlement. If that were smashed - what would it need to be replaced with? Respect for women, children and our boundaries, maybe. Sexual exploitation could be replaced with meaningful work.

Another pillar of patriarchy is violence and militarism. That could be replaced by peaceful negotiation and cooperation.

And so on -

I was only happy to be a SAHM because I had children very late, and had already achieved as much as I was likely to in my career. I would have felt very differently if I had been a younger woman.

I understand that pov. For me it's the opposite. I was 26 when dd was born and she's nearly two now. Originally I wanted to reduce my hours slightly and work a day from home and her father was going to do similar. While I was on maternity leave, my company let lots of people go and changed quite a bit and basically could, or would not accommodate my request. As the lower earner and younger person it made more sense for me to stop working at that time. My intention is to stay home until my daughter is about three. I know I could get a job in my previous industry again if I want to, although that's not my plan.

You could pose this same question to all radical politics

I'm sure you could but as I like living in a liberal, secular capitalist economy it's not a question I need to address.

Sexual exploitation could be replaced with meaningful work

What ?

dione in lots of families the woman goes to work and then does most of the wife work too. I don't see working/not working as an inherently feminist decision.
The work of raising children and housekeeping needs to be done, whether that is one parent staying at home to do it while one works, both working and doing it or outsourcing it is no ones business but that families. As long as both partners go into the set up with eyes open and have made a justified decision that isn't based on "well its a woman's role to stay at home" then it's feminist afaic.
Even in rad fem utopia children would still need caring for and I think it would still be parents who wanted to do that work.
I think it would be good to see care as more visible and valued work, in the home and as a job.

I'm sure you could but as I like living in a liberal, secular capitalist economy it's not a question I need to address.
Patriarchy is not just economics is it?

Sexual exploitation could be replaced with meaningful work
What?

You asked if patriarchy was smashed and women were liberated from it - what would replace it - right?

I said one of the pillars of patriarchy that can potentially be smashed to liberate women is male sexual entitlement. It seems odd to want to replace male sexual entitlement with anything.

However, at a push, since sexual exploitation exists as a result of male sexual entitlement - then if you smashed the pillar of male sexual entitlement, then sexual exploitation would end.... so for those who would otherwise be sexually exploited in a patriarchy, I imagine their fate may be replaced by meaningful work- no?

Sorry I still don't get it. How does removing male sexual entitlement= meaningful work.

No I don't see the connection at all. "those who would otherwise be sexually exploited in a patriarchy, I imagine their fate may be replaced by meaningful work- no?"

No. Sorry that just sounds like a soundbite.

You asked if patriarchy was smashed and women were liberated from it - what would replace it - right?

I'm sure I've asked that several times on other threads - not had an answer.

"Political lesbianism is straight (and one would assume bi) women making the conscious decision to be a lesbian. Now, I don't know how that works in practise - whether they would actually enter into sexual relationships with normal lesbians (which feels a bit wrong and cruel to me really) or if they just say they're lesbians to make a point and actually live asexually instead. I've never met one to ask "

Apologies for the delay in replying to this earlier strand!

The whole thing changes quite a bit once you question whether human sexual orientation is innate or not. Yes, I know that the current orthodoxy is that us poor homosexuals were born this way, so leave us alone, but is that really the case?

As regards political lesbianism, the Wikipedia entry does quite a good summary!

From my point of view is that it was always to the advantage of the patriarchy to say that emotional and sexual relationships with men were natural for women (hence making lesbians unnatural). Now that has just shifted to natural for MOST women (hence making lesbians natural but a minority). So allows liberals to feel all warm and fuzzy about being nice to those poor little dykes, but doesn't actually change the situation as regards heterosexuality for the majority of women, and sexual availability of women (with a few dykes to perv over) for straight men.

Whereas saying, heterosexuality ISN'T your only choice, asks all sorts of questions and opens all sorts of doors.

That's interesting dyke. Especially in the context of those studies suggesting female sexuality might be less fixed than male sexuality!