I am a feminist and a sahm

[CountryLifeMummy]

I had a discussion with a male friend who believes I can not be a feminist and a sahm.
Bit of background -
I live in the country with some animals. I have one child. I decided to come out of the workplace to be at home with my child before they started school. They are now at school but as a family we feel we like the lifestyle of a house in the country and animals. Because of our rural location school is a bit of a drive away. I am very busy from morning to evening with the animals / school run / housework / laundry etc. I do realise this is a luxury but we budget well and can afford to have one parent at home.
I love my role in my family and feel very satisfied as a feminist that I am doing what fulfills me on a day to day basis. My husband is happy for me too and there is no resentment. He has to leave early for work and I am happily responsible for ironing his clothes and making us all dinner. He makes dinner at the weekend and will help with house jobs then too.
So, I was discussing feminism with my friend who discribes himself as a feminist - supporter of the This Girl Can campaign and Wimens March etc. He is in a relationship with a career driven person and he is very career driven himself. We get along mostly and I applaud his feminist views, usually.
He said to me that actually, how can I call myself a feminist if I stay at home living out a dated social stereotype serving a man and having no career and therefore no self worth.
I am confused but this and I didn't answer him as I didn't want to argue. By believe is that feminism is the radical notion that Men and Women are equal (actually I believe in full equal rights including children as well). Surly if I am happy in my life and my "work" then that's all that matters? Or do I need to have paid employment to really be a feminist?

the vast majority of women aren't employed in jobs that could be called a career, they just have jobs. Because those jobs tend to be less well paid than their husband or partner's job or trade

To the first part: neither are the vast majority of men. To the latter, I've read a few times women in their 20s now out-earn men in their 20s. I'm not sure of the exact figures but regardless, whatever the case, it's not acceptable that jobs associated with women are underpaid compared to jobs associated with men (due to sexism and undervaluing of women's work again).

Also this doesn't explain the posters on various threads on boards here who've said they were the highest earner upon having a child but still felt pressured to give up work for a variety of reasons including being "less of a woman" or "bad mothers" if they didn't and assuming the man would still go on to earn more.

I also dislike all the criticism mothers who work get in so many quarters.

I'm not 100% sure where this rant was meant to go, but the whole concept of choosey choice without understanding the background against which those choices are made seems a bit one dimensional to me

Oh I agree - but I also think that part of the issue is that men and women have different choices and they are not made under the same circumstances and with the same conditions. Also, the debate re whether the choice may be 'free' (or not) has tended to overshadow the issue of the consequences of that choice - and the SAH option for women, in the event of divorce, often does lead to poverty.

By the time they were 9 months old my children weren't breastfeeding during the working day day and hardly any one breast feeds past a year and when they do it is usually at night as a comfort thing. So given the length of maternity leave in this country, breastfeeding is a red herring.

I do think there is a structural issue with the sheer number of women who opt out of the work place enabling men to continue to progress to positions of influence and authority. That is not to blame individuals for their choices, but these choices do impact on the shape of society.

Work in the home is important and should be valued but larger political and economic decisions that effect us all take place out side the home and all these lovely SAHMs, while doubtless wonderful for their husbands and children, cannot have any influence unless some are prepared to put on their smart clothes and get out there and influence in the workplace.

I don't think feminism is about choice - or certainly not always making the easiest choice for you. Change is hard earned and won by women who dared to step outside the domestic sphere.

I concur TheLuminaries. It's also a sign of how men's lives take precedence that women are still so often expected to sacrifice careers they've built up and put a great deal into if they have children, to support the man in his. This doesn't apply to the SAHPs who've posted on this thread but does often happen, yet men are rarely if ever expected to make any sacrifices to support women's careers if they have children together. Because men's careers and ambitions take precedence and we're taught that from a young age.

Also mothers working isn't bad for their children, just as fathers working isn't. On the contrary, my mum is a fantastic mum and has a fantastic career.

the SAH option for women, in the event of divorce, often does lead to poverty.

Agreed, those can be the consequences of that choice, but again, when a baby is born some parents have a range of options and most don't and it tends to be the parents who have the narrowest range of choices who bear the brunt of the consequences as well.

I also find the whole concept of slagging off SAHM as being somehow lesser than their WOHM counterparts repulsive and you see an incredible amount of that happening on various MN boards. Not everyone wants or can achieve their own private island and not all women can make an active choice to work outside the home.

It's always going to be an emotive issue.

I also find the whole concept of slagging off SAHM as being somehow lesser than their WOHM counterparts repulsive and you see an incredible amount of that happening on various MN boards.

I've seen and heard far more slagging off of mothers who work, both on here and elsewhere, but both are unacceptable.

I also find the whole concept of slagging off SAHM as being somehow lesser than their WOHM counterparts repulsive

Agreed, but that shouldn't be a reason to shy away from a feminist discussion of the broader structural implications of the 'choice' to stay at home with the children always inevitably being made by women, why that is and what impact that has, on society as a whole.

I do think 'feminism is about choice' misses the entire point. Feminism is about achieving equality for women and sometimes we have to examine choices through that lens, rather than lazily thinking that whatever women do is to be applauded. Like all liberation movements, change can require hard graft and sacrifice. As feminists we should try and live the change we want to see in the world, to support our sisters and daughters.

It isn't about achieving equality. It's a liberation movement.

However, as I said, this is an emotive topic.

agree with luminaries the choice to stay at home affects everyone - it dictates how work is structured and also how school and childcare is structured.
I've always been a WOHM - with a SAHP - my life is hugely affected by SAHM- whether it be in how my work place is structured , when events and meetings take place at school etc. In a world where both parents had to work I think a great many things would have to be different (how would long commutes work? childcare etc) and to a degree these are stymied by the presence of SAHM,
On another note , i don't think its necessarily about valuing paid work v unpaid work - i do think that there is more credit/respect given to SAHM with preschool children than those with school age for example - because of the size of the role for example.

It's worth pointing out that you can get every bit as screwed over by a bad employer as you can by a bad husband. maybe not literally You can't escape patriarchy in the workplace any more than in the home. Sure, you might need a job and a source of income if your husband leaves you. Likewise you might value a good husband's emotional and financial support if you ever lost your job. One is not an automatic remedy for the other's failings.

It isn't about achieving equality. It's a liberation movement. I consider it to be both. What it isn't, is 'about choice'.

There's so much patriarchy inherent in these discussions too. It's always assumed the man is constant, working, providing and every decision the woman makes around working or choice she does or doesn't have is in the context of "other" to the working, providing husband. Also assumes every couple is heterosexual or that every woman wants to be or will be in such a relationship.

GallicosCats that is a rather simplistic analogy that doesn't stand up to much examination. There is not the same web of complex emotional and familial ties with an employer. You don't have sex with them, you don't bear their children. There will not always be in your life as the father of your children. Hence, one can have greater self determination in the workplace in choice of employer, retraining and changing careers. The domestic sphere has many more complex snares for unwary women, as the relationship boards attest.

'It's worth pointing out that you can get every bit as screwed over by a bad employer as you can by a bad husband. maybe not literally You can't escape patriarchy in the workplace any more than in the home. Sure, you might need a job and a source of income if your husband leaves you. Likewise you might value a good husband's emotional and financial support if you ever lost your job. One is not an automatic remedy for the other's failings.'

I agree to an extent Gallicos, except for the fact that being out of the workforce doesn't just prevent a woman from earning money there and then. For every year she stays at home a woman loses more of her value as a worker so that if she does divorce, or she decides to go back to work, her earning power will be severely damaged. Add to that the difficulty of finding a job when you've been out of work for a while and the decrease in confidence that many SAHMs experience and many women are screwed.

Our society is structured so that access to money is a key driver of success and there are certain conditions around having that access - employability being one of them. When SAHMs lose employability they lose access to personal success, something that can have massive repercussions.

I don't have any choice. He earns alot more. I am the carer to our disabled dc. He admits he couldn't hack this and they need and want it to be me.

But I don't do the 'wife work'. He organises the bills, cleans more than me and pays a cleaner for the rest. I have a great deal more personal or free time within our set up than he does. My job within our family may not be a free choice but it is highly valued.

Yes, but couldn't some of that lack of confidence be a result of the undervaluing? Most of what I hear regarding SAHMs is that they're all lazy and probably thick or Stepfordesque. That doesn't help me, as a sahm, feel very confident. I struggle with confidence anyway as my parents already consider me a failure because I failed at academia, I'm never going to be athletic and I'm not slim. And while I like SAHMing, I don't find it easy and I am trying hard to learn new skills as the children develop.

Funnily enough, the only place I hear nice things about SAHM is here on this board. So OP, you can indeed be a feminist and a SAHM.

I agree with others who have said it is an entirely feminist choice to be a SAHM and that being a SAHM is work.

It is not at all in the same category as activities like painting nails or shaving legs.

I also agree with NoLoveofmine's point. Many SAHMS are single parents. This is not all about women with husbands.

I am a sahm. I am a feminist, I am also a Marxist. I no more see my decision to stay at home as a free choice than I see my participation in a free market capitalist system as a choice. It is my reality. I have constrained choices. I am not immune to the problems inherent in claiming feminism while doing wife work and being financially dependent. The life I have is a compromise that we live with and works well within the framework of the world we live in.

Thank you bigmouth for articulating so eloquently how i feel about my choice to be a sahm for the first few years of my children's lives. It was the best choice available to me at the time.

TBH, I don't mean to sound rude but I don't understand how being a SAHM could be compatible with feminism. If anyone could explain it to me I would be really grateful.

You are choosing to forego a personal career, pursuing an interest etc. and using your free choice to rely solely on your partner. What if he breaks up with you or dies? You won't be able to be self-sufficient, unless he has really good life insurance or something. There's something concerning about thinking that if my partner left me and I was a SAHM, I couldn't support myself. And personally, I feel guilty living off other people's money.

Also, I see a career as a personal achievement which no-one can take away from you (even if you get fired, you have your work experience behind you). House, kids, partners can all be taken away from you in a divorce.

Not all SAHMs are dependent on a partner. Many are single parents.

It's the right decision for my family and I don't see how having a wage gives somebody any kind of intrinsic 'worth'.

I disagree - I attach worth to my wage because

a) It means I can support myself - if my landlord kicks me out, or some unforeseen bad thing happens, I can support myself and not have to be bailed out by my parents, partner or government.
b)If you enjoy your job and find it mentally stimulating and feel it contributes to society, that adds a lot of worth and purpose into your life. Just like having children I suppose!

'It means I can support myself '

Lucky for you. You must be incredibly wealthy.

That vast majority of men and women do not earn enough to be able to support themselves and pay for childcare for their children.

I'm not wealthy. I know childcare is incredibly expensive - really, it should be at the very least subsidised by the government, or at best, free. Then everyone who wanted to work could go back to work.

How much is childcare per year (full-time)? If it's in the realms of 20k, I can understand why someone on a low-paid job would pack it in and stay at home. The problem is, this gives them a huge career break and makes it 10x harder to go back to work, meaning they probably don't, and seeing as this is usually the woman - this perpetuates the "woman on lower wages not in the boardroom" scenario.

In the ideal world, maternity leave would be longer and better paid, and childcare wouldn't be ridiculously expensive. For example I was born in a socialist country where mat leave was 3 years paid by the government and nursery was free - so my mum stayed at home about 2/3 years then went back FT. We moved to UK when I was 6. With a solid career she could then pay for FT care for my brother 10 years later.

It's a really sad circular situation we've got going. Government really needs to do something.

Average weekly full time wage is 510 before tax.

Average childcare cost for one preschool child is 225 a week.

Most people simply could not afford to go to work without 'depending' on someone else.

I also don't understand how you can disagree with being a SAHM and agree with three years of maternity leave. That's nine years of being a SAHM if you have three kids!