What's wrong with being a SAHM?

[Roseandlily]

I am not a feminist (I don't think). I currently earn more than my partner but when our baby is born I will be a stay at home mother. I love the idea of striving to be the best mother, home maker, having the tea on the table for when he gets home stuff. I love the idea of it all. But when I talk to people and they ask "oh what's your plan, how long to you plan to take off work?" And we both say I won't be going back and this will be me at home for say the next 10years give or take.

I would like to add that we would like to have 3 children so I will be at home until the last child starts school.

I don't care about amazing holidays we have done that :) or fancy cars, both had what we wanted and now have got sensible cheaper cars. We are married and have a lovely home.

What do feminists think is so wrong with this? And why do people make me feel weird about this?

@Drylce I thought this was a very good statement that can be applied to a lot of "is doing X feminist?" questions

I would never presume to tell an individual that she is making the wrong choice for her.
But in large numbers, these decisions contribute to a world where men and women have very different options and outcomes particularly in relation to work and family.

Butterfly's post kindly demonstrates the level of twatishness you will be subjected to as a sahp!

There is no such thing as a wasted education. People don't just go to school in order to generate money - learning has intrinsic value. It helps to shape who we are. Human worth is not defined by what job a person does.

My education has been quite handy in helping my own dc. I did a good job in getting them through the GCSE and A Level years, so hardly wasted

This is just a general remark not aimed at the poster but people mentioned abuse earlier on and how it is often a slow process with them testing the waters so to speak.

Men often start abuse when they marry or when a child comes along. It's a noted pattern amongst DV charities and studies that have been done.

Just to add OP that good parenting has nothing to do with sah or woh. If you want to be a good parent then you will be, regardless of whether you work ft, pt or not at all, outside of the home.
My own mum did a mix of woh and sah. My dad woh - both were amazing parents. My dh works a lot, but he is a fabulous dad - nothing is too much trouble for our children.
Good parenting is about loving your children, giving them time and attention, teaching them how to be decent human beings etc. Not everyone does this in exactly the same way, but if your children's physical, emotional and financial needs are met then you are doing a good job.

My husband's job is to provide for our family, mine is to look after the household and raise our children.

Like any job it has goods and bad days, it can be boring as hell or super rewarding.

I am totally financially dependent on my husband, I don't see this as a failing or a weak point, I'm lucky to have a husband that does provide.

I think the idea of 'having it all', being made to feel you have to have a great career and a family is more detrimental to women's rights than relying on a partner for income. Equally he relies on me for running the house and childcare and he'd be equally screwed if i fucked off and left him.

Butterfly's post kindly demonstrates the level of twatishness you will be subjected to as a sahp!

Well, I never have been personally, but it's clearly out there. Can't be nice for kids to think that one of their parents regards spending time with them as "literally giving up", but it takes all sorts....

Sorry I haven't RTFT. But most people don't make their intention to leave work permanently widely known as it can affect enhanced mat leave entitlement. Which I'm guessing as a high earner you may be entitled to in your role.

People might be making you 'feel weird' about your lack of common sense about this if you are widely broadcasting your long term intentions to your possible financial detriment.

And butterfly demonstrates that contemptuous attitude I talked about earlier beautifully in her post.

What's the difference between using my education to educate my own children and being paid to use it to educate other people's children? Only the 'being paid' part. For me success doesn't automatically mean financial success, and there's nothing feminist about thinking it does.

I don't see why women being supported to have enjoyable careers and happy family lives is remotely detrimental.

Men consider this perfectly doable.

It's disingenuous to talk about SAHPs: the vast majority are SAHMs.

It irks me that women are so underrepresented in many working fields and at senior level and men so underrepresented in SAH and PT working.

The main difference between using your education AH and OH is obviously financial. Unless you have independent wealth or are confident you'd get a lot of money/assets/pension pot in the event of divorce you are financially dependent on your partner, which is a big risk.

I think the idea of 'having it all', being made to feel you have to have a great career and a family is more detrimental to women's rights than relying on a partner for income.

Should we teach girls to aspire to be mothers who stay at home then, not to careers? This may not go down too well seeing as I don't know any girls who aren't already keenly planning future careers, myself included. You enjoy your situation, don't suggest the opportunity to have a great career and being free to pursue one is "detrimental to women's rights". It's hugely disheartening for girls my age that you think we're "made to feel" we want great careers. No-one makes us feel it, we do.

Anyway my parents both have the day off today as we're all off out and going to eat plentifully later on, yet more excellent time being spent with my full time working parents.

The main difference between using your education AH and OH is obviously financial

Or, put another way, using your education at home directly benefits your children, whereas using at work directly benefits your employer. (It may also then indirectly benefit your children, I grant you, because the money you earn may benefit them).

It's also the direct counterpoint to the "good example" tosh point that's often spouted on here. I've never met a nanny or nursery worker with an Oxbridge degree. Or an advanced professional qualification (outside childcare).

It irks me that women are so underrepresented in many working fields and at senior level and men so underrepresented in SAH and PT working.

But why do people who claim to be feminists spend so much time and energy criticising those they see as oppressed rather than tackling the oppressors?

There are still significant barriers to both parents working whilst having a family. In some situations SNs, health issues) it becomes near on impossible. Men's salaries still, statistically, exceed women's which supports that SAHP being the woman.

Why blame the women for, pragmatically, making the 'best of a bad job' in a patriarchal society? Why dismiss the voice of those that are oppressed? Instead of supporting them and actually fighting to tackle the patriarchy instead of demeaning the victims of it further?

True loopy.

Working is not just about money for many people. Certainly me there is absolutely no need given how much DH earns and how financially inclusive he is to me and DC.

Working matters to me for all kinds of reasons on a personal level.

But if we take this from micro level decisions to macro level ones, surely we can all see that men run the world.

The macro level decisions taken by men affect us all and of course our DC. And those decisions haven't historically always been in women and children's best interests (understatement).

Whilst of course that does not mean that all women can or should attempt to form part of a new macro decsion making process in the work place/ at a political level etc we, as feminists, need to at least acknowledge that the lack of women's voices in those arenas does impact on us all both as a society and individually.

It's one thing to not take part in the bigger picture but to not even see it. Well sheesh.

It's only a risk because society allows it to be. In accordance really equal society provision would be made for those who look after their children (or if we were going down the collective upbringing route, early childcare would be free).

NoLoveOfMine you misunderstand. Women are told they can and should be both career powerhouses and be 1950s soap box housewives at the same time. My parents both worked too, and my mum was worn out and cross most of the time because she was having to do everything (having to in the societally pressured way). That's not the ideal but for many it is the reality.

And it's really important to try not to take personal offence -or even make it personal - during these conversations because otherwise these conversations are impossible.

I certainly don't regard sah as 'giving up'.
Parenting is what you make it - it is an active choice to be a good parent because good parenting doesn't happen by accident.
As I said upthread though, how a family divvies up the job of generating income, has no bearing on good parenting. Somehow we have loaded the choice with more significance than it deserves.

I'm a bloody good role model. I am a kind, decent person. That is what I'm showing my children. My woh dh is also a bloody good role model. He too is a kind, decent person. We give our children our time and attention, we teach them that eduction gives them opportunities and choices in life. Feminism is about equality of opportunity and freedom to choose.
When other women say that a choice has no value, they are just buying into the patriarchy.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to aspire to have a great career and children if I wanted them but my brothers should.

I'm also baffled by the implication parents who work aren't benefitting their children NataliaOsipova you seem to think parents who work don't spend any time with their children giving them the "benefit" of their education, which is clearly untrue.

Anyway this thread is ruining my morning and I have a lovely day with parents ahead so I'm off, will endeavour to learn my true role as a female soon.

NataliaOsipova you seem to think parents who work don't spend any time with their children giving them the "benefit" of their education, which is clearly untrue.*

Go back and read my post, which was a response to an assertion that the main benefit of using your education out of the home was financial. I put a different spin on that. Nowhere did I say that parents who work don't spend any time with their children. Nowhere at all.

I'm also baffled by the implication parents who work aren't benefitting their children  NataliaOsipova you seem to think parents who work don't spend any time with their children giving them the "benefit" of their education, which is clearly untrue.

Anyway this thread is ruining my morning and I have a lovely day with parents ahead so I'm off, will endeavour to learn my true role as a female soon.

Doesn't feel nice to have your choices criticised does it, NoLove? Perhaps feminists should be more supportive of women in the different choices they have made as women? Instead of making each other feel crap?

TBH I think high levels of subject specific qualifications aren't particularly useful in the parenting game - and I say that as someone with bloody tons of them!!

Get

TBH I think high levels of subject specific qualifications aren't particularly useful in the parenting game - and I say that as someone with bloody tons of them!!

Mine were. But then, I've studied child development and education, as well as English literature, language and linguistics. I can see being in medicine, psychology and psychiatry also being very useful! Really lots of qualifications are useful beyond employment.

Who is blaming mothers for their decisions?

I agree in one sense, Carl - you don't spend much time talking about nuclear fission or optimum capital allocation strategies with a toddler! But take it out more widely. One of my DCs is really interested in the Second World War. Not something I knew much about. So I've got up to speed - read several books - and now I can take her to museums and explain things to her in an age appropriate way. You couldn't ask a nanny to do that. And that's without casting aspersions on anyone else's intelligence: you don't want your childcare provider reading up on your children's interests when they are supposed to be looking after them and it's simply unreasonable to suggest that they do so in their spare time. Could I do the same if I worked? Yes, I could - but I'd have a lot less time to do it. So I reject the idea that education is wasted when you look after your own children.

But - at the end of the day (as we were discussing on another thread, Carl), who the hell knows? You get one shot, you make the best call you can at the time and you hope it works out well. If you choose one way (which will have some advantages), you don't choose another (and therefore lose the advantages that would have had). There are pros and cons to all scenarios. Pretending one way is right or wrong is just over simplistic.