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?

No-one is undermining the value of work that a SAHM parent does. We are just saying that not having the ability to support yourself and your children financially, independently of your husband is a pretty massive risk

It is a massive risk. Which I think could be mitigated if society shared the wealth a lot more fairly when marriages go wrong and made men pay what it actually costs to raise dc instead of allowing male parenting to be optional. I think that is the biggest problem for sahm, that society still doesn't see that the wohp wages are family money, not just his.

The problem with this discussion is everyone is taking it as a personal attack on whatever their own situation is

avoiding it's very common to hear about SAHMs doing everything and being proud of that fact.

On a recent thread one poster was talking about allowing her DH to give 110% to his work.

I can honestly say that I have no feeling that one way is better or worse than the other. Being a good parent has nothing to do with sah or woh. I've done both and was the child of a mum who did both. Each choice comes with good and bad aspects.
Feminism would do better if women made an active choice not to criticise other women's choices.

I think that comes back to protecting the sole income rather than a belief that his work is more important.

Which I think could be mitigated if society shared the wealth a lot more fairly

Basic income?

The argument about SAHMs enabling men to get ahead at work is a bit ridiculous.

There are plenty of people at work who intend to never have children. There are those who put off having children until their thirties.

It is the norm at work to not have responsibilities for children. If you don't have children housework, washing etc are very minimal amounts of effort.

And work is not the whole of society. It isn't more feminist to go to work or to be in a better job than a worse one.

I agree avoiding, but as it stands society does not society does not do that. Therefore women should be fully aware of the risk of being financially dependent

Agreed Pain.
Sorry make, what do you mean by basic income?

Every time I read a post from a woman claiming her husband can only work because they don't I cringe. Both for the man who seemingly can't do two things and for the women who feels the need to have a high flying career partner and live off them claiming it's all down to them.

As for the children, they see the 1950s model of women play house and men have to work. Teachers work so hard telling both sexes to aim high and they can do any career they want but in the face of the old fashioned model it does little.

It's not feminist to go to work or not go to work

Feminist issues are inequality at work/with child care/support for sahp/support for women exiting abusive marriages etc

Individuals making choices is not a feminist issue. Feminism is concerned with seeking equality for women, improving conditions for women and protecting women

But OP chose to post her navel gazing here, which has somewhat distorted the issues/discussion

rainbows it is much much easier all round of 1 person is at home. Takes stress out of organising childcare, finding everyone a pair of clean pants on a Monday morning etc etc

I am a SP to 2 and my career is fairly high flying. Having someone at home, doing cleaning, cooking, child ferrying etc would improve my quality of life

But why are teachers telling kids to aim high? Not everyone wants a high flying career.

Neither of my teens want one, and I have one of each sex.

People should be aiming to do something that they find fulfilment in, which is what mine were taught at home and at school.

If everyone aimed for a high flying career, there would be a huge shortage of classroom assistants and primary school teachers.

I was a SAHP for 13 years, before working part-time. Taking the 'traditional' roles played to our strengths and we were happy with this.

Until we broke up, and XH told me I 'brought nothing to the marriage' as I didn't work so didn't contribute financially.

I am a feminist. I raise my sons and daughters as feminists. I would love to be able to say to my DCs that it's a good choice to be a SAHP if that's what they want, but I just can't. It's still not a valued choice, leaves (mostly) women vulnerable and lets (mostly) men off the hook WRT childcare and housework.

I think you are being a little naive OP. If you aren't a feminist what are you? Don't you believe in equality?

It is a bit of an oddity on MN that everyone has "careers". Some of my friends do, but some have ordinary jobs as receptionists, in retail or running toddler classes, etc. My husband has a job which has ended up progressing, but he is not ambitious towards his career. I am a SAHM because we can afford it, I want to be at the moment and we have a great quality of life as a result. Admittedly, I do sometimes have moments when I feel unfulfilled (I was high achieving at school) but I have done several courses both online and in person, I love planning educational trips (and just-for-fun trips too!) for the kids, I volunteer in a couple of roles and I read good books.

I have found ways to better myself or feel a sense of pride while being a SAHP. However this is only made possible because we have a little bit of spare cash each month, DH is a good man who mucks in with the DC, we live in the suburbs so stuff is accessible, I work hard at being a SAHM and I have a good group of supportive friends (although only one is a SAHM) and the type of personality that will volunteer for stuff like PTA. A good dose of luck, basically.

Rainbows, that's massively judgemental.
For a start, I don't believe that sahm claim that their partner's work achievements are 'all down to them'. But certainly it is easier to study for promotions, travel, stay late for meetings and focus on work properly, if you don't have to tailor your working life around childcare etc. Whether you consider it an anti feminist choice or not, it is a fact that having a sah partner does enable career progression. Of course it is not impossible to do it without one, but it is much harder.

I find it deeply offensive to be told I am 'living off' my husband. We are a partnership and we have chosen to divide up the essential tasks of looking after our children and earning money in the way that suits us both and made our lives easier. That phrase implies that I provide nothing of worth to the partnership.

Personally I don't see anything wrong in sah to look after one's own children (apart from the financial risk element). Your post implies it is somehow less than having a career. I disagree. I have loved my life. I used to be a teacher and while I utterly support the idea that everyone should be given the education and training to earn their own money, freedom of choice is key A person's value is not measured by whether they directly generate money.

Finally, not everyone is capable of their own high flying career. Many people just have jobs. It makes sense for couples to play to their strengths, maximising income and minimising expenditure on child care, if there is no financial advantage (or desire) to outsourcing it.

Sorry make, what do you mean by basic income?

Well there are various models...some which are being experimented with now.

The idea is that each person would have a basic income. So from perhaps a feminist perspective, if a stay-at-home-mother found herself in a bad position, she would find it very easy to arrange for new living conditions.

It would make part-time work a more viable option. Or returning to school. Or continuing to be a stay-at-home mother.

Of course, not everyone wants a 'high flying career' (I am not even sure what that is) saint; that is a straw man argument. But everyone should be aiming to be able to support themselves, no?

IME schools don't teach kids to 'aim high'. They do teach them to apply themselves and find their passion/forte. Probably varies depending on area/school

Even if that 'something', is no job and self-sufficiency. The most important lesson though is risk management surely. Everyone should reduce their vulnerabilities, whatever they choose to do

polar whilst very interesting, and with respect, your post is irrelevant. When SAHP take the issue as a personal attack and start justifying/explaining; it detracts from the actual point

It's not about having to be 'high flying' or having a career. It's about being able to support yourself should you need to

I was never a career minded person. I left school at 16. I have had 4 jobs at times to support myself. I have been so skint, at times. My SiL is not European and is poor and rural. She has had jobs digging roads with a pickaxe with her baby strapped to her back. I'm not coming at this from a career/priveleged POV. It's survival

Good post foxy. Problem is, no one thinks it will happen to them

make, thanks for the explanation. We certainly need something so that women are not trapped in marriages.
Personally, I would make woh partners have to legally share their wages if the sahp has been disadvantaged by raising shared dc. It would stop men from thinking that the money is all theirs. I suspect this wouldn't be popular though.

She has had jobs digging roads with a pickaxe with her baby strapped to her back.

No offence, but I think the idea is that in a society with so much wealth, we will find ways so that mothers with small babies do not dig roads with pick axes. If for no other reason, it is a terribly inefficient way of building a road.

Painful oh I know, I don't feel attacked, it's just quite an interesting debate. I suppose I was trying to make the point that a "career" isn't always more fulfilling than SAH. Nor is a job necessarily more reliable than a DH/DW (and I do specify H or W here as marriage is vital for anyone SAH imo).

I know that I would need to return to work if DH left me. I know that that will be a struggle. I hope it doesn't happen but if it does, I believe I am resourceful and hardworking enough to return to a reasonable job in time. I know I would be financially ok for the interim.

I suppose becoming a SAHP should be a genuine free choice, and a considered choice. It is possible to protect yourself both from boredom and exploitation but givig up work entirely for a period needs the same consideration and planning as any other career move or major life decision.

I'm appalled that you found that joke worthy make;

I was illustrating that I am not coming at this from an 'everyone must have a career' POV. That the issue is being able to support yourself and your kids independently. And that the issue is culture and world-wide.

That is what feminism seeks to address. Not some MC Britain, feeling disapproved of because she chooses to stay at home and really wants to ignore the risk she is taking. And wants everyone else to pretend there isn't a risk, as well.