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?

In the end we all just do feels right at the time.

This is the nub of it. And - given everyone's situation is different and people have different views/personalities/needs, what's right for one family may not be right for another. People lose track of that, I think. At the end of the day, if you have children, they need to be cared for and there needs to be money to support the family. But how they are cared for, how much money you need and who needs to earn it? All a matter of personal choice and opinion.

Plus - I've noted all the talk of dependency on here and one thing leaps out at me. I probably know just as many working mothers who are dependent upon their own mothers as I do SAHMs who are dependent on their husbands. The cost and inflexibility of childcare means that it's often a grandparent who is required to step in to some degree or other. Does that affect whether work is seen as a feminist choice?

I don't think it's impossible for SAHP to be represented well by working parents - there are some people who are so conviction centred they know they'd never have made a different choice but for most of us, where we fall on the full time to SAHP line is largely a question of circumstances.

I do feel the real injustice is that first of all people can't own their choices without feeling judged (although some of that is in my case because I'm second guessing myself), and secondly that there is not enough provision for SAHP getting training to return to good jobs. Surely there is a way to talk about retraining at al ages of life without making people feel bad about themselves as no good ever comes from that.

I think women helping other women to try to overcome patriarchal problems (over priced childcare being one of them) is a deeply feminist act.

Tagging on - I think that people see their individual decisions as just that - individual decisions. Fair enough.

But the feminist analysis of that is to see how people's individual decisions are framed by quite powerful social structures, underpinned by very powerful ideologies: socialisation of women and men into feminine and masculine roles; the organisation of work along the lines of male life patterns.

I think this latter thing is what is difficult - the way we organise work and business is around a male life cycle. Men don't get pregnant. So we've been trying to squeeze a very different life pattern into an old, outdated mould.

I think women helping other women to try to overcome patriarchal problems (over priced childcare being one of them) is a deeply feminist act.

...or alternatively, you are getting another woman to do child centred/domestic work for free, thereby reducing its value further in the eyes of society?

I'd say one thing I never realised until I had children and walked the walk: we do need to respect people wanting to stay home with their dc in the early years even if that wasn't our choice, it is as natural as wanting to carry on with a career you've fought hard for. Yes women are socialised to be maternal, I was always socialised to forge ahead in my career - I found it a biological drive to want to stay with my dc, albeit one I didn't listen to for various reasons.

I was always socialised to forge ahead in my career - I found it a biological drive to want to stay with my dc

That's a bloody good point - I'd wholly agree with that (as someone who took the opposite decision in the end).

Your mother isn't generally going to have an affair/leave you for another daughter/fall out of love with you

It's pretty age old and world wide, for older generations to take care of the kids

Your mother isn't generally going to have an affair/leave you for another daughter/fall out of love with you

No, but she might get ill/have a change in her own life circumstances/get older and frailer and not feel up to the same level of childcare anymore/feel that she needs to split her time between her grandchildren if your siblings go on to have children....

"many couples tag team as their children grow up depending on where they are in their career/how much they like their job at that time/their geographic location of job/childrens' needs etc"

That's not what I observe at all: I see women making the career compromises, full stop.

DH "does as much for the DC as time allows". So time when paid work allows.

Well, he's here every weekend loopy, and depending on travel, some evenings/mornings.
If we were both woh, that could be the reality for both of us. As it is our dc have one parent who is home. It wouldn't necessarily be the case that if I woh, he would be at home more.

My point is that men become fathers and work FT and parent around that. So their financial and labour market position remains the same or even improves. Women much more often parent AH for some or all of the time. Thereby taking all the financial risk.

Yes, it's definitely true that women are more likely to cut back on work.
Upthread it was said that work hasn't adapted to recognise demands of parenthood - employers don't care at all about family, they just expect you to be there and do the job. That has had negative impact for both men and women.
I'm sure lots of men would like to be home more but the way our society is just doesn't allow it.

Thereby taking all the financial risk.

I think that's a really interesting way to look at it. Because with any risk comes a reward trade off. And what people are prepared to accept for a given reward varies according to their tolerance for risk. So, yes, I absolutely accept that I took the financial risk, but I got the reward of being the primary carer for my children when they were small. So I was prepared to bear that risk. My DH didn't get to spend anywhere near the same amount of time with them, as he was working. His financial risk was less, but his reward of time with his kids was lower.

Yes of course the current set up, employers etc, is bad for (some) fathers too, but nowhere near as much as it is for mothers. Men are almost always choosing not to take the financial risk.

So the way to change it is to take away the financial risk of sah. For the state to recognise the risk and ensure that sahp receive proper financial support in the event of divorce and to compel fathers to actually parent. I think that not seeing your dc or skimping on child support should be as legally and socially unacceptable as drink driving.
If men knew that their sahp had a legal entitlement to half the family money, that a sahp's work was recognised as having value to him, then they might respect it more and as a result choose it for themselves. Which in turn would help negate discrimination against women in the work place because we wouldn't be the ones who always take time out with men never doing so.
It would protect women who stay in bad relationships for financial reasons.

I disagree avoidingcall. I think the government should put more measures in place to allow the sahp to be able to work after having children. Going to work is good to stay in touch with adults and it's so easy to slip into bad habits staying at home including losing confidence to ever go back to work even when it's possible.
Staying at home full time only allows for further financial insecurity at some point. How long is the working parent supposed to provide for the non working parent in the event of a divorce? Once children at primary school, once children in high school? Makes more sense that child care was made financially accessible for all than putting further stress on the working parent?

I would say the wohp has an obligation to share the wealth indefinitely upon divorce. Certainly for as long as it takes for the sahp to make up lost ground. After all, the wohp benefits forever from having no break in career and lots of home support.

I agree that helping sahp who want to rtw after a time would also be beneficial. If this happened and the sahp was hekped to make up lost time properly, then the amount of financial support needed from men post divorce would decrease. But that financial support should certainly be there until the sahp has truly caught up.

Bear in mind that women are usually the rp after divorce, with many fathers dropping out of any meaningful responsibility for their children. This makes it really difficult for women generally. Men should not be allowed to drop all the work involved in raising dc while keeping all the money!

it's so easy to slip into bad habits

Talking about women like they are children doesn't exactly further the discussion blubber.

Instead of blaming being a SAHP for losing confidence in the workplace, what about blaming the prejudice and discrimination prevalent in the workplace? The lazy attitudes of husbands who 'allow' the woman to work but only as long as she can still do school pick ups etc, drastically reducing her career flexibility?

It's not the case that being a SAHM og itself makes you depressed / work shy / afraid of communicating with other adults / insert shitty prejudice here. That's just what is said about SAHMs as part of society devaluing the choice.

What if a sahm is so just because she wants to be at home with children?

Is everything to be judged by financial gain and career progression? The point is having a choice. It should be just as easy for women as men to get back into the workplace - if that is what they choose. We need to understand that some might not for personal reasons.

The question to be asked is why don't as many men make or, indeed , have that choice?

Instead of blaming being a SAHP for losing confidence in the workplace, what about blaming the prejudice and discrimination prevalent in the workplace?

Exactly, Batteries. If a woman was sexually discriminated against at work we would not say, choosing to work is not a wise choice, in terms of feminism. We would not tell the woman she is putting herself more at risk for experiencing patriarchal oppression in the workplace. We would not warn she will become vulnerable if she becomes financially dependent on the wage she receives from an employer. We do not deter women from working in male dominated industries which are full of sexist attitudes. We cooled be instead advising women to set up their own businesses instead of being employed.

If a woman wants to be a SAHM, is it not valid, in terms of feminism, to win the fight for equal rights within the home? To fight for economic equality, and equal division of labour, in this context? If women have achieved well, in terms of equality, in the home arena, should that not be celebrated alongside those who have achieved well within paid employment?

Women get criticised whatever they do and blamed whenever things go tits up WRT to children.

I would say the wohp has an obligation to share the wealth indefinitely upon divorce. Certainly for as long as it takes for the sahp to make up lost ground. After all, the wohp benefits forever from having no break in career and lots of home support.

Completely agree. I read something recently about families having post nups drawn up to protect the SAHP in the event of divorce. Excellent idea IMO.

Men should not be allowed to drop out of their DC's lives.

I've been a feminist all my adult life and a SAHP for much of it too. See no conflict there whatsoever.

'If a woman wants to be a SAHM, is it not valid, in terms of feminism, to win the fight for equal rights within the home? To fight for economic equality, and equal division of labour, in this context? If women have achieved well, in terms of equality, in the home arena, should that not be celebrated alongside those who have achieved well within paid employment?'

Yes, exactly.

02/08/2017 09:55 AdelicaArundel

Rose
I rarely post in here, but I lurk and learn. There are many knowledgeable people here who have considered views and seem open to having their views challenged.

You are apparently a woman and are posting in the feminist section. Yet you've opened by stating that you are not a feminist

It astounds me that any woman can declare she is not a feminist.

But I see this a lot from younger women, who have not yet entered the badlands of juggling babies and work and how your identity and societal position changes once you acquire the status of mother.

Pre-mothering women seem to think that they won't be like me. That they won't become haggard and harassed and stridently feminist.

Well, I think I was probably like you once....until I was dealing with non-sleeping children and then getting up to go to work in the morning.

It's tough going.

You've asked what do feminists think is wrong with your plan?
Nothing wrong with it.
But I doubt that it is a plan made with a full understanding of the personal, financial, societal and long-term implications of that decision
^
One of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. Agree entirely

IME it's not the first child that changes everything, it's when the second child comes along. That's when childcare becomes unaffordable, and the school run difficult, and the number of days off needed to cover sick children untenable for one parent to carry alone, and clubs and activities need lots of ferrying around... And so it becomes easier all around for the mother to stay home rather than go back to work, or she goes back to work for a short time then takes a career break / resigns