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?

Please do not let this descend into the same old SAHM v WOHM debate Mumsnet rehashes every now and again. Female solidarity respects each others choices while recognising how heavily loaded the dice are against women and even those that think they have equality pre children soon learn how the situation changes when children come along and suddenly all those heavy socialised expectations and judgements of mothers mean women can't win.

The issue is not other women and their views, it is the patriarchal structures that mean we beat each other up about our so-called choices while men get to be fathers without the massive social expectations dumped on mothers. When of course many of those so called choices are not really choices in the true sense of the word but rather uneasy compromises in order to get by day to day.

Well said TheLuminaries

We all make our choices against a society that is patriarchal. You know men will never be having this discussion with each other.

We have a long way to go until parenthood is equal and perceived as equal in the workplace, but until then we need to be fighting the same fight, not ripping each other to shreds.

Justnow

I meant putting their needs first, something I couldn't have done if working.
I was following on from the posts at the time about why do some parents prioritise children
HTH

The issue is not other women and their views
Kind of is when it is women criticising my parenting skills for working or suggesting I'm envious of sahm. Don't recall a man doing so.

As both my parents work full time, are neither of them putting my needs first or only one of them and, if the latter, which one? Just so I know which one to harangue for being so selfish.

On this thread it's been suggested mothers who work (not fathers who work of course) aren't putting their children first, care more about money, are secretly envious of those who don't work, aren't giving their children the benefit of their education and are selfishly giving it to their employer and so on. Only one poster has actually been critical in the opposite direction, suggesting it's a waste of education to stay at home after having children. I don't agree with any of these viewpoints but the attitude towards mothers who work (again, interestingly not fathers who work instead of staying at home) from some is quite unpleasant.

NoLove

If your needs are being met, the way your parents want to provide for you, then they are doing just fine whether they work or not.

On this thread it's been suggested mothers who work (not fathers who work of course) aren't putting their children first, care more about money, are secretly envious of those who don't work, aren't giving their children the benefit of their education and are selfishly giving it to their employer and so on.

Not how I saw it. The thread was entitled "What's wrong with being a SAHM?". The poster has been told that she's pandering to the patriarchy, that she's setting a poor example to her children, that she's valuing herself lowly, that she's squandering her education and that she's selling out other women.

As for you and your parents? In the nicest possible way, I don't care if you think either or both has been great or awful. Absolutely none of my business. I only care about what my own children think.

They've done brilliantly thanks. Always spent lots of time with me, been very close, taken my brothers and I on holidays, trips out, nurtured our interests, come to all important school events. There is no way they haven't put us first and the implication they've not done so (well it's the implication my mother hasn't quite clearly) is ridiculous.

The poster has been told that she's pandering to the patriarchy, that she's setting a poor example to her children, that she's valuing herself lowly, that she's squandering her education and that she's selling out other women.

I've only seen one of those comments from one poster.

In the nicest possible way, I don't care if you think either or both has been great or awful.

Well, that's clearly pretty unpleasant, but ah well.

who has implied this Nolove context is everything.

You see, my dc came first by me not working and having to take vital time away to go to work.
Now, I stated this as a response to somebody who asked why?
At no time did I imply that another woman who was woh wasn't putting their children first.
I would suggest that putting food on the table was putting their needs first, wouldn't you?
Tbh I find it ridiculous that you presume to know what people are implying. Are you a medium?

Well, that's clearly pretty unpleasant, but ah well

No. Just honest. Entirely neutral. Don't know you, don't know your parents. Not my place to judge and nor should it be. If you're happy that's great. If you're not, then take it up with whomsoever you view to be at fault.

No. Just honest. Entirely neutral. Don't know you, don't know your parents. Not my place to judge and nor should it be. If you're happy that's great. If you're not, then take it up with whomsoever you view to be at fault.

What a bizarre post. The final sentence is so odd it made me laugh.

I think someone who doesn't care if someone's parents have been awful just because they don't know them is clearly quite an unpleasant person, though.

I meant putting their needs first, something I couldn't have done if working.

This does rather imply that working mothers aren't putting their children's needs first.

And actually, I'm not sure that putting the children first is necessarily the best thing. We endeavour to balance out the needs of our family unit. I'd be a deeply unhappy SAHM. I have no idea if my children would be happier but I'd be miserable.

I also expect if I'd been posting about how great my mother was because she didn't work you'd be posting about how excellent this was.

As both my parents work full time, are neither of them putting my needs first or only one of them and, if the latter, which one? Just so I know which one to harangue for being so selfish.

This was the question you asked? Harangue either of them, both of them, or neither one. As you think fit. You are, after all, uniquely placed to judge.

How do you think whether your parents put your needs first, or not, relates to feminism, NoLove?

Personally I've nothing, ideologically, against working mothers or fathers, for that matter. I just don't think choosing to work, implicitly, is a more feminist choice than not working.

A woman can be oppressed in the workplace, just as she can at home. Tackling that oppression is the feminist choice. Tackling oppression can take a variety of guises. I don't think simply advising a woman not to be a SAHM, in ominous tones, is necessarily the best way to do this. It is not a foregone conclusion that she will be more exploited and oppressed in the home than in the workplace.

Just because I am a SAHM does not mean I do nothing to tackle the oppression patriarchy causes.

How do you think whether your parents put your needs first, or not, relates to feminism, NoLove?

Other than any woman who works having that opportunity thanks to feminism I don't

This does rather imply that working mothers aren't putting their children's needs first.

FFs there's two of them now. It's like a Doris Stoke reunion.

Ok, I'll write slowly so you might both understand.
I have prioritised my dc by not working.
It enabled me to offer them far more choices than had I been employed as they needed a grown up to be with them for them to pursue their activities.
I don't think any employer would be happy me saying I can't come in tomorrow or indeed next tuesday etc as I need to be in x place with one of the dc.
Never have I implied, thought etc that I was a better parent because of it, except of course to my own dc.
We all have different priorities when it comes to our families and when asked about prioritising children and not working, up thread, I answered as obviously I have experience of this.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding of implications.

Other than any woman who works having that opportunity thanks to feminism I don't 

Women have never not worked! Feminism hasn't given us work. It has allowed us more control over it and the profits from it, NoLove.

Ok, I'll write slowly so you might both understand.

You can be as patronising as you like but you stated "it's the decision we made" about putting your children first. If this isn't meant to suggest parents who work don't put their children first, presumably you agree parents who work are putting their children first as well.

Women have never not worked! Feminism hasn't given us work. It has allowed us more control over it and the profits from it, NoLove.

You are obsessed with attempting to pick holes in everything I post, it's quite odd.

You are obsessed with attempting to pick holes in everything I post, it's quite odd.

Really, I'm not NoLove. However implying feminism is what has allowed women the opportunity to work is inaccurate. It minimises the paid and unpaid work women have done before the feminist movement. It suggests employment is the place that is the pinnacle of feminism - when there is still so much to be done in the workplace and outside of it.

Not that you necessarily meant the above when you posted, but what you said comes loaded with implicit meaning.