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?

Which is weird, because the treatment of SAHMs has always been a feminist issue.

The Wages for Housework campaign, for example. I heard one of the campaigners from the seventies talking about that, and she felt that in many ways it had been a success, because we now have child tax credits, which do give a level of autonomy and security to many SAHMs.

A major problem now I feel is lack of council housing. That makes it more difficult for women to leave, as does the change to legal aid.

I think that when couples split, the courts should recognise if one parent had sah to look after dc, thus scuppering thrir own earning potential and this should be reflected in the financial settlement. The court should also award in child support what it really costs to raise a child, so divorced women are not financially disadvantaged by being a rp.
Men should not be allowed to opt out of raising their dc - not seeing your children for weeks on end constitutes child neglect to me and should be utterly socially and legally unacceptable (with rare exceptions, like being on active service in the forces).
Men should not be allowed to cherry pick the parts of parenting that they fancy and treat the rest like it's optional.
It's this that holds women back, rather than sah per se.

Society does not value SAHMs because the lead voices are male.

To change this, we need to change the sex of some of the lead voices.

And replace them with women who have had successful careers and therefore think all other women should have done the same and anyone who deviates has 'thrown themselves under the bus'? Or thrown away their education. I get the shivers at the thought of someone like Butter being my lead voice.

I fear that a a lot of women have bought into this notion that the only value people have is if they directly generate money. They have been brainwashed into despising other women whose choices have been different and at the same time despised themselves by a society that criticises women generally.

To change this, we need to change the sex of some of the lead voices.

But a lot of women don't value the role of SAHMs either.

X post Saint

Sorry, I mean Avoiding.

I fear that a a lot of women have bought into this notion that the only value people have is if they directly generate money. They have been brainwashed into despising other women whose choices have been different and at the same time despised themselves by a society that criticises women generally.

I think this is why some women start to fantasise about the 1950s housewife. Because staying at home to look after children was accepted and normalised. I sometimes crave this type of acceptance and started to watch some old sitcoms and dramas. However I got swiftly reminded about the really shocking misogyny (and racism) that existed then and had to turn off! So, I am under no illusions, there has been a lot of change for the better, even relatively recently, too.

Well if you refuse to trust women, leave it to the men. They've done a sterling job so far.

It's not about whether you trust women or not, I don't think. I think the battle is more about changing the attitudes of everyone, women and men.

The whole thing needs an overhaul, not just the replacement of men by women who've been socialised to think like those men.
It's a survival instinct isn't it? Adapt or die. The women who are scathing of sahm are just as much victims of the system as any other woman - they have to fit in with the existing structure or they won't thrive. They see sahm as opting out. At the same time that system loads them with guilt and criticism for woh.
Nothing good comes of womrn pitting thrmselves against each other. We all get defensive about our own lives and choices and the system carries on as it ever did!

I fear that a a lot of women have bought into this notion that the only value people have is if they directly generate money.

I haven't seen any posts on this thread urging the OP to stay in work because it's important to generate money, or implying that human beings only have value if they do so.

I've seen plenty of posts cautioning the OP to think very carefully before giving up work because that results in a lack of financial independence that would render her vulnerable in the event of relationship breakdown/other catastrophic circumstances. That isn't about valuing generating money over looking after children: it's about not being trapped in poverty if things go wrong in the future.

furrygiraffe makes a good point.

Did you miss Butterful upthread?

I had a very good career before I had my children and with my first I had every intention of going back to work, even telling myself I would go back within 3 months of giving birth!!! However, when I had my baby I didn't want to leave him so decided that I would be a SAHM and have been for nearly 10 years now. If I decided to go back to work I wouldn't want to pick up where I left off now anyway so I have no worries there. Most people who turn their noses up at being a SAHM secretly envy those who are able to stay at home.

Did you miss Butterful upthread?

No I didn't. And while I agree Butterful's tone was unpleasant the point made was about wasting education/self-fulfilment, not making money (I should probably point out that I disagree with Butterful about that).

I do totally agree that it is a choice that has risks and needs careful consideration, which I think I did say upthread too.
Am not posting from a pov that sah is right and woh is wrong. I've done both and was the child of a mum who did both at varying times. Tbh I think if you are a good parent then outcomes for kids will be just as good either way.
I just think that sah shouldn't be financially risky or make women vulnerable and that society as a whole should not penalise women who sah if they end up getting divorced. For many it isn't even a real choice but a financial necessity.
Equally women shouldn't be criticised for woh and child care provision should be much better to enable women to make free choices.

I think her point was that if you are not at work (the point of which is primarily to make money) then you are wasting your education and throwing yourself under the bus. To me, those comments imply that sah has no value because you are not using your education etc for work.
No recognition that not everybody gains self fulfilment from their paid work.

The people who understand the situation of SAHMs and should advocate on their behalf are people who are or have been SAHMs. I don't want to be 'lead' by somebody who has never had those experiences.

It is also important that women who have been SAHMs are in key professions like medicine, politics, media and policing. It reduces prejudice and discrimination by those groups if former SAHMs are a part of their profession.

I think her point was that if you are not at work (the point of which is primarily to make money) then you are wasting your education and throwing yourself under the bus. To me, those comments imply that sah has no value because you are not using your education etc for work.
No recognition that not everybody gains self fulfilment from their paid work.

Ok, fair enough. I interpreted 'wasting education' as being rather more concerned with squandering of intellect than loss of money-making opportunities. I disagree with the sentiment either way.

I do totally agree that it is a choice that has risks and needs careful consideration, which I think I did say upthread too.
Am not posting from a pov that sah is right and woh is wrong. I've done both and was the child of a mum who did both at varying times. Tbh I think if you are a good parent then outcomes for kids will be just as good either way.
I just think that sah shouldn't be financially risky or make women vulnerable and that society as a whole should not penalise women who sah if they end up getting divorced. For many it isn't even a real choice but a financial necessity.
Equally women shouldn't be criticised for woh and child care provision should be much better to enable women to make free choices.

I completely agree Avoiding. SAH is undervalued and should be valued by society. But unfortunately, as I think someone said upthread- that's the world as we'd like it to be, rather than as it is at the moment. And in the world as it is, the financial risk is very real.

I work 4 days. Mainly because I would be a rubbish SAHM (and I am fortunate to have a job that I enjoy). But part of the reason I have never sought to work less is because we had a very tough period when DS1 was 1, where DH nearly walked out (he was very close to a breakdown at the time and genuinely thought we'd be better off without him). And I was suddenly faced with the prospect of having to go it alone with DS1 and I realised how vulnerable I would have been had I not had an income.

Total fail on the bold there- apologies

I do look back and think that if I had my time again, I might choose differently. Not because I haven't loved my life but because it is true that sah makes women financially vulnerable. I have taken steps to protect myself as much as I can but if I'd had MN back when I was making choices, I may well have continued to work. I didn't realise that it was such a huge risk.

At the same time that system loads them with guilt and criticism for woh

What is this "system" of which you speak? The only people who have criticised my choice to work full time after 2 months maternity leave or attempted to make me feel guilty were Sahms.

Most people who turn their noses up at being a SAHM secretly envy those who are able to stay at home

Yeah right.

From the numerous sah v woh threads that I have seen on mn over the years, woh mothers have said that they feel guilty for going out to work or felt judged. Not everyone, obviously, but enough. And plenty of sahm felt judged for not woh.
Tbh I think sah and woh mums both feel like they have to justify their choices. It's why this topic gets so vicious on here. The 'system' is this society where no matter what a woman does, someone at sometime will tell her that she ought to have done something different.

I'm not suggesting all parents should put their children first, but it's the decision we made.

Peculiar phrasing there. Almost as if you're implying work out of home mothers are not putting their children first. Stay at home mothers are. Working parents are not.

How silly of me to think that. I'm sure I've got you wrong above ^^.