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?

I am a SAHM and a strident feminist. I couldn't not be, after seeing how society treats motherhood, although I've always been a feminist.

I believe it is a feminist issue that caring, and child rearing, which have traditionally been undertaken by women, have such low status. I think looking after my DC and raising them to be happy, kind people with a social conscience is really important for the future of our planet. I'm by no means saying that you have to be a SAHM to do this, but that surely whoever looks after our children during the day is doing a really vital job in our society? Yet they are often nursery staff on minimum wage, or unwaged SAHMs.

Society says I'm wasting my education by taking time out of my career to look after my children full-time. I will probably struggle to get a job again because looking after my children is seen as "doing nothing." I think that if you want to do full time child care for the early years that people should respect that as a worthwhile endeavour, because raising children matters.

Argeles

Agree totally

I am saying that I think your argument is unfeminist because it assumes that women are able to develop such a skill. Even trained psychologists find it hard to identify such people.

It also gives rise to abusers going undetected in institutional settings because a whole load of people who believe they have the 'skill' you are talking about all say that 'x seemed like such a nice man. He would never do something like that.'

It might be a difficult skill. But are you suggesting that there are no warning signs to any abusive behaviour? Are you saying that it is impossible to be more or less skilled in this area? That successful relationships are merely down to luck?

As a further point, is a woman unfeminist if she values good relationships? If she invests time and effort into developing good relationships with people? If she values her relationships more with people than making money?

That instead of playing to our particular strengths

Being a stay at home parent isn't a "particular strength" of a woman or man. Either a mother or father should be equally free to do so. This isn't the case at the moment due to a variety of factors.

Also my mother has always worked and excelled in her career, a fantastic role model to my brothers and I. She isn't "conforming to a reverse of the traditional gender stereotypes" as you bizarrely put it - most women and girls want to work. All the girls I know are already mapping out potential future careers, the "traditional gender stereotypes" only exist to limit everyone and particularly women and girls.

'I think that if you want to do full time child care for the early years that people should respect that as a worthwhile endeavour, because raising children matters.'

Yes, absolutely. And that lack of respect is the crux of what puts women in such a bad position. Because society will not accept the time, skill and effort required for someone to care for small children, nor how vital it is.

'Are you saying that it is impossible to be more or less skilled in this area? That successful relationships are merely down to luck?'

No. There are three elements. In some cases it cannot be detected in advance. In some cases abusers deliberately target more vulnerable women (for example prior victims of abuse ). In some cases signs can be detected. So for anyone in a successful relationship, luck will have played a part. Because it always could have turned out your partner was an abuser. And it always could be that you were useless at seeing the signs but happened to meet a good partner.

'As a further point, is a woman unfeminist if she values good relationships? If she invests time and effort into developing good relationships with people? If she values her relationships more with people than making money?'

No, good relationships are always more important than money.

Being a stay at home parent isn't a "particular strength" of a woman or man.

I never said it was. However the subject matter of this thread questions whether a woman being a SAHP can be a feminist choice. Just because being skilled as SAHP is not determined by that parent's sex it does not mean a feminist being particularly skilled in that area is anti feminist.

Also my mother has always worked and excelled in her career, a fantastic role model to my brothers and I. She isn't "conforming to a reverse of the traditional gender stereotypes" as you bizarrely put it - most women and girls want to work. All the girls I know are already mapping out potential future careers, the "traditional gender stereotypes" only exist to limit everyone and particularly women and girls.

Equally a mother can be a SAHP and an excellent role model. Opposite gender stereotypes to the traditional ones would be just as limiting. People playing to their individual strengths, choosing their own path, is the only way to go to truly obliterate the effect of stereotypes. This means valuing SAHP and employed parents equally.

Saint, so we agree on that to some level. Pleased you clarified.

It's pointless to talk about supposed "opposite gender stereotypes" because they're not what's limiting choice. Gender stereotypes are. No-one has said being a SAHP is "anti-feminist", quite the opposite - as always on threads on this issue.

SaintFrancis- absolutely, that's why I think it is a feminist issue! Caring for young children is vital to our society, but it's seen as nearly worthless. Children, and those who look after them, deserve better than that. It shouldn't be career suicide to take time out to look after your children, we should be helping mothers get back to work, not going, "well, you've stuffed that up by wanting to be at home with your three year old, you should have gone back to work immediately." Why not give a carers wage so that anyone who wants to can take a few years to look after their children without defaulting on the mortgage? It's crazy that we value childcare so little.

I suspect we agree on many points Clarity.

@bluntness has summed up the good advice very well.

The op asked for the negatives. She didn't ask what was positive. Nearly every single response said there is nothing wrong with it, but pointed out the risks. In turn we have a number of stay at home parents being defensive and angry. The risks are real, they are not judgements, they are simply warnings. We even see it on here regularly.

If it works for you, as it does for many, then don't be angry or defensive. It's not a judgement. She asked and people responded with honest answers of the risks involved and those risks are very real

There are risks. Pointing them out isn't some kind of judgement or criticism. The OP did not ask for a SAHM vs working parent bun fight.

I have been a SAHM, and I've changed my name on marriage. I am fully aware that neither of those are feminist choices, and I don't feel the need to be defensive about that. I can also separate my individual choices from women's as a class.

Why is having my father's surname, rather than my husband's seen, particularly, as a feminist choice by some? I changed my name and was happy about it, as an individual and feminist, because I rather liked my DH's surname. I would be no more feminist if I chose my mother's maiden name either. She had no particular attachment to her father's name either. The only truly equal choice would be to come up with a new name - but than family names get lost.

Yes, Screw.

I always get irritated by the argument that we should attempt to convince women not to go part time or give up work when their kids are young, because if they do their careers will be destroyed.

I would rather we accepted that many women really want to do this, improve conditions, pay and options for part time workers and have more opportunities and less discrimination against women entering the workplace in later life.

If many of us are expected to work until 70, it's ridiculous to say to women at 40 that any chance of a decent job is a pipe dream just because you did something else for 5, 10 or 15 years.

NoLove any stereotype, whether a traditional, opposite or even anti stereotype limits choice. The only way to obliterate stereotypes would be to completely disregard them in your decisions, having no thought and making no reference to current or previous ones.

now the thought of doing any paid employment fills me with dread
Sorry to pick out one poster, but this statement rang alarm bells and is one of the concerns about women stepping out of the workplace for long periods. It leaves them not just financially, by psychologically vulnerable as the world of work becomes a scary and alien prospect. This does leave women incredibly vulnerable to putting up with all sorts of crap, because the alternative seems too scary and distant to contemplate. It also means they believe all kinds of rubbish about how essential their men's work is and the long hours they have to do etc etc. which are basically an excuse to get out of any domestic responsibility.

After all, if being a 1950s housewife was so fucking great, men would do it and women wouldn't have had to struggle and sacrifice to get out of the domestic sphere.

Why is having my father's surname, rather than my husband's seen, particularly, as a feminist choice by some?

This is a completely different issue, but why is it your father's surname but your husband's surname is his? No-one says men have "their father's surname". My surname is mine. It always will be. That it's still nearly always women who change their surnames (though far more women keep theirs now) is entirely sexist. If I get married, my hypothetical future husband would be taking my surname.

saint
The thing is that getting that kind of change takes time and probably requires more women to be in senior positions within companies for it to be raised as a real issue.

I'd love for having a career break to raise a family not to affect career prospects, but right now it does and if we are giving advice then it has to be based on how the world is currently, not what we'd like it to be in a better world.

After all, if being a 1950s housewife was so fucking great, men would do it and women wouldn't have had to struggle and sacrifice to get out of the domestic sphere.

Quite. I have so much admiration for the women who fought to do so, for women's right to work and rights in the workplace and continue to fight sexism and women being held back in the workplace today.

Anyway I barely know anyone whose mothers don't work, and all have excellent careers as well. This shouldn't be the preserve of fathers (in terms of parents) nor do fathers' careers matter more than those of mothers.

Pointing them out isn't some kind of judgement or criticism.

However the OP asked,

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

And she got warnings of the risks of being a SAHP, why the idea might not be a good one and presumably from feminists with a feminist perspective. Since that was what was asked.

This is why pointing out mainly risks, from a supposed feminist perspective, can feel like a criticism. It suggests being a female SAHP is damaging somehow to the feminist cause. It alienates female SAHPs from feminism. A more balanced response pointing out advantages as well as risks would feel less critical.

The point of feminism is to warn and advise, but also to advocate for what we want in a better world.

I don't see many women in senior positions are likely to help SAHMs. It will have to be done through pressure on the government.

But in a nutshell, currently being a SAHM will increase your risk of poverty, and going out to work will reduce the time you have to build relationships and care for others.

Why is having my father's surname, rather than my husband's seen, particularly, as a feminist choice by some

Because I was born with my father's surname. The buck has to stop somewhere. Why should women be the ones to change? Why shouldn't men?

So much defensiveness here!

My surname is mine. It always will be.

So is mine. I chose to change it when I was married. I had no choice concerning the one I was given at birth.

Op might not come back but this thread needs saving and showing to girls everywhere!