Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

[user1471506568]

Ok so I'm a SAHM and would also strongly identify as a radical feminist although admittedly I still am learning about all of this. I understand that liberal feminism is more about the individual as opposed to the class movement so under that philosophy being a SAHM is an acceptable feminist decision but I'm confused about the rad fem stance.

I can see how from a financial perspective being a SAHM is a bit of a backward step for feminism, but this is such a narrow view and I don't think money is the only measure of worth . In fact it strikes me as an extremely patriarchal measure where the balance will always be tipped to men earning more due to women having children.

I would be really interested in people's views on this. Can I be a radical feminist and a SAHM or am I letting down the class movement?

NB: Please don't take this as negative judgement of any working mothers as I respect everyone's decision to do what's best for them.

People arguing that the solution is to "stop devaluing" SAHM work - do you see no problem then, with a society where men do all the work outside the home and women do all the work inside it, from a feminist perspective? Really?

@Bellamuerte and others arguing biology - does that mean that women should not have equal career opportunities? Because I don't believe for 1 second that women aren't as interested in working because of biology. Yes you can cite breastfeeding, pregnancy, these things are temporary- whether it's 2 weeks or a year post birth for you.

I worked for an organisation with a majority female workforce (men at the top though, natch! ). Successful returns after mat leave were like hens teeth - most either jumped, or were pushed. Flexible hours, part-time working, job-shares, working from home - all were forbidden, as the CEO didn't like them. The head of HR went on about how much she hated pregnant women (I think she was joking, but it didn't fill me with confidence about telling them I was up the duff!), maternity expenses were specifically excluded from the company health plan. You get the picture. It didn't feel like a terribly welcoming environment to go back to. Couple that with a flat management structure that left no room for promotion, and a culture that expected staff to 'develop' and take on more responsibility for the same money, and the decision to not return seemed like the best option to me, at that time.

Jobs in my field don't really exist here, so I decided that, since we as a family don't want to relocate (we like it here!) I would change career. I'm in the process of retraining now, while SAHM-ing.

Was that a feminist choice? Maybe not. But it was a choice made in an environment that was not particularly feminist itself, IYSWIM. If my old workplace had been more flexible, we would probably have done the 'both going part-time' thing (DH would have had no problem doing this as his industry is far more flexible, ironically), but it wasn't. And he earned more than me and was far happier in his job than me. So. There you go.

I like being at home with DS, and I don't think it's automatically feminist to go to work over staying at home. (I don't know enough about radfem vs libfem to judge that, mind you). However I think that the fact that these choices are made in an environment which is not neutral needs to be recognised.

Why is work more important than bonds to society?

Well you can tax work but you can’t tax bonds. That sounds like I’m being negative about work but actually I mean the opposite. We need people in employment to contribute taxes.

A large number of people breastfeed beyond a year. It was more like two years, in my own case

Actually very few women in the U.K. breastfeed after a year, only 1 in 200. I did breastfeed over a year though and I went back to work full time at 10 months. Feeding a 13 month old is vastly different from feeding a 3 month old.

" know what would happen - the person whose job does allow them to leave at a reasonable time would do most of the childcare, as well as their own job."

True and this is the reason many women quit. But looking at this from a feminist perspective- which is what this thread is about - why is it mostly women having to make that choice? Is that fair? Is that okay?

" these choices are made in an environment which is not neutral"

Radical feminism recognises this, that there are various barriers in place to women actually having much of a choice.

Liberal feminism would say it's your free choice to go to work or stay home and either can be a feminist decision. I don't agree with the liberal feminist view.

do you see no problem then, with a society where men do all the work outside the home and women do all the work inside it, from a feminist perspective? Really?

So the only role of value is that which males stereotypically take on? Continue devaluing women in a role they have chosen? Stop devaluing SAHM work, yes, really!

This deeming as valuable only the work which is paid is firmly rooted in a patriarchal capitalist perspective. In a society where extended family bonds are valued and families pull together to help house, raise, care for and feed family members, less of the work undertaken is chargeable. The whole family might pull together towards production. However only outsiders are charged monetarily and only the surplus, after providing for the family, is sold.

Liberal feminism would say it's your free choice to go to work or stay home and either can be a feminist decision. I don't agree with the liberal feminist view

I disagree with that. Liberal feminism for me involves changing legislation and social attitudes to promote more equality. Although I do agree that it’s not so good at looking a cultural influences

"So the only role of value is that which males stereotypically take on? Continue devaluing women in a role they have chosen?"

Many women do not choose it, but are pushed into it by circumstance, default, society, career choices. I didn't say the only role of value is the traditionally male one. Should our daughters (& sons) not be able to grow up free from gender stereotyping? Surely there should be approximately equal numbers of women and men at work and SAH? (In the absence of a utopia where everyone works part time)

I'm a liberal feminist and while I recognise that choices are not made in a vacuum, I think personally that liberal feminism is the way to go to achieve the best outcome for women. It's not that I don't recognise class analysis

Liberal feminism would say it's your free choice to go to work or stay home and either can be a feminist decision.

Again, I wouldn't say either is a feminist decision. What I would say is that the ability of women to live their lives according to their own choices, however loaded those choices may be, is a feminist aim in itself. So the choice itself may not be a feminist one, but it's not my kind of feminism to deny you making it.

Does that make sense?

I appreciate radical feminism might bring about equality quicker, but it seems to come at a price I'm not prepared for women to pay; the sacrifice of the perception of autonomy and choice.

Sorry to say this but who is paying for your radicalism? I would have loved to have been able to afford to stay at home but we couldn't. Not even with major belt tightening. Luckily I have in laws who are retired and we pay them to look after our dd.
Not saying you can't be a radical feminist. But don't judge me for being what some posters are laughably calling a wage slave.

It's completely ridiculous and unfeminist to claim that the reason the vast majority of SAHP are women is because women choose it / inherently prefer it. There are so many reasons why women are set up by our society right from school to adulthood to end up in the main domestic role. I'm not going to try and educate people here who persistently ignore this.

Should our daughters (& sons) not be able to grow up free from gender stereotyping? Surely there should be approximately equal numbers of women and men at work and SAH?

Any devaluing of a role any woman chooses to take on is a form of stereotyping. If the SAHP role is valued more by society more men would take it on.

don't judge me for being what some posters are laughably calling a wage slave.

And equally don't judge me or others for taking on the role of SAHP. If working women in powerful positions supported parents more, returning to work would be a lot more attractive and more easily managed by women who have previously chosen to SAHP.

@RatRolyPoly I agree with the "aim" you state, but I would add that the ultimate aim is to remove the loading/inequality in women's choices and you can only do that by recognising that it exists. It makes me sad that many women are satisfied with this illusion of equality, which ultimately perpetuates the status quo.

If the SAHP role is valued more by society more men would take it on.

Surely not if it's a highly valued thing that is done 99% of the time by women? Surely they'll all just stay in the office with all the other men, regardless of perceived value?

Not judging you, lift. Work in a place with female boss and with plenty of female senior managers. All of whom have children. Know a few women who stay at home.
You make whatever choices you have to make and you still have to pay the bills.

@liltingleaf but how do we achieve that? We are back to policy. I don't think you and I disagree that the work is important - I just think it shouldn't be default women who it falls to because that causes all sorts of problems in terms of expectations and bias. As pp said, men somehow need to recognise the value of that work and they currently take it for granted that a woman will do it.

Know at least two men who are SAHP or who work part time and have the smaller wage.

I would add that the ultimate aim is to remove the loading/inequality in women's choices and you can only do that by recognising that it exists.

I completely agree with you on this TheGrumpy, and that the "perception" of choice is a poor prize. However given that many women don't recognise that it is only a perception, I think not valuing that perception would be counterproductive in the short term.

That's why I absolutely recognise that radical femism gets the job done much more effectively... but liberal femism feels like it might get us there without having to fight both the patriarchy and all the women to get there.

Surely not if it's a highly valued thing that is done 99% of the time by women? Surely they'll all just stay in the office with all the other men, regardless of perceived value?

Well, there is certainly a better chance of men doing it than if the role is devalued. There are also no losers when a role is valued. By using devaluing as a negative incentive, the people already in that role suffer further.

By using devaluing as a negative incentive, the people already in that role suffer further.

Yes, I suppose you're right.

@RatRolyPoly sadly this perception of free choice is often used by people to argue that we don't need feminism or any more change because women now have the option to work or stay home. Yay! So I do try to encourage people to think about the big picture and not just examine their own individual circumstances (which is what I think differentiates radical feminism from liberal). Then you start to see that the personal is indeed political, as it's a story repeated more often than not, by the majority of women.

Yes, you're right. It's funny isn't it though TheGrumpy, I remember the threads recently about "is it time to ditch Feminism?", and half the arguments for yes were saying we don't need it anymore because we have choice, and the other half were saying we don't need it because feminists just want women to do what THEY say instead of what the men say! So I guess both ideologies can be used to undermine femism.

I've said it before but I definitely believe it; I think the two work to their best advantage together.

"@Bellamuerte and others arguing biology - does that mean that women should not have equal career opportunities?"

Women do to a large extent have equal career opportunities - until they decide to have babies. Pregnancy is nine months during which it's difficult to work at full capacity. Breastfeeding is a year. And a one year old child isn't ready to be left by his mum while she works 10-12 hour days and overnight business trips etc to progress her career, which is the sort of commitment that top level jobs require. Assuming another primary carer is available to take over, mum is still going to be out of the workforce for anywhere from 1-4 years per child, during which time her skills become less current.

The fault here isn't biology. It's how society is set up so that high powered jobs require single minded focus and long hours, and if you can't commit to that you basically can't progress. Not to mention that once your skills lapse it's very difficult to persuade an employer to give you a chance to catch back up. This doesn't just apply to mums - it applies to anyone with a gap on their CV or who wants a decent work-life balance.