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.

I agree. I don't think the solution is to tell women what "the feminist thing to do" is and disapprove of other decisions. But I think ignoring the barriers that limit women's free choice is very dangerous. What we need is to place the responsibility on government and policy makers to create a structurally more equal society, not (1) look down on women for managing any way they can despite the disadvantages we face OR (2) pretend we have equality and that if you didn't succeed at work after kids (just 1 example!) you just didn't want it enough or something

"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, "

Even if dad at home? I don't think everyone will agree with you there Bella. You don't have to take 1-4 years off work to have kids.

Wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said there TheGrumpy.

"Pregnancy is nine months during which it's difficult to work at full capacity"

Maybe true for some women. Please don't perpetuate this crap, many pregnant women continue to work with no issues or run marathons or win tennis matches! These kinds of views make it harder for women to be seen as equally capable at work.

You can't say what will happen in any individual case though. Best case scenario, the woman loses some days due to appointments and can't do heavy lifting or other physical tasks while pregnant. Worst case, she could be vomiting, exhausted, suffering from a number of pregnancy induced conditions, or even off sick. There's just no way to tell ahead of time, which is why employers see it as a risk.

I used to think I had all the answers. But being well qualified and remaining in some form of paid employment still doesn't seem to insure against structural inequality between the sexes.

I currently work part-time in the most lefty, liberal organisation that it is possible to imagine. This is a female-heavy organisation with a large number of women working part-time in interesting, stimulating roles. But even here I have witnessed situations that point to the inequality of opportunity between men and women:

• far more men than women in senior roles for a long period of time

• long serving female administrative staff being made redundant and replaced by IT systems, only for those systems to not work and need a lot of assistance from highly paid consultants (100% male).

• a female job applicant (who had previously done an almost identical job in the same team for several years) being turned down in favour of an unknown male applicant. He is young and single, she has two small children.

• a man 15 years younger than me and with far less relevant experience being appointed to the same pay-grade and given the word 'manager' within his job title. I raise this as an issue but nothing happens.

• for my own part, applying for promotion (to a role for which I was more than qualified), going through a full external recruitment process and being turned down in favour of an external applicant who was happy to work full time.

• yet in an adjacent team, a few weeks later, a male member of staff was promoted up to the equivalent post without the role being advertised (either internally or externally) or going through any kind of process whatsoever.

What can one do? The problem is that there is always a 'reason' or a justification - but five years down the line the mature women have got pissed off, voted with their feet and gone on elsewhere. It is a female-heavy organisation, but somehow men can still rise to the surface. The ones who are fathers seem to have partners/spouses who shoulder the burden at home - I am never conscious of any of them dashing off to do pick-up or similar. Or do men just look more authoritative and more convincing in a female-heavy workplace?

The man who works with me is lovely and good at his role - I have no doubt that in ten years time he will have a senior post in the same sector and I will probably end up working for him!

Thanks again for all the posts. I just wanted to add some more ramblings and thoughts about issues that have been raised

1. SAHMs lose their financial independence and this is unfeminist - I would question this one by asking how many mothers (and fathers) are completely financially independent and what the exact definition of this independence is. Are you financially independent if you take any state support? Not only the obvious such as tax credits and child benefit but also if you're taking out from the system (through using any publicly funded provision such as schools, NHS etc) more than you're putting in? If you had to rely on your wage alone as a working parent would your answer be the same? If your answer is still no to the above, would you be able to support your exact lifestyle on your wage alone or are you dependent on your partner's wage to fund part of that lifestyle? If you are totally financially self sufficient then I suspect you are in a very small minority and would suggest that this just isn't a realistic ambition for most women (and men) especially when kids arrive. In fact the crippling costs of childcare probably means that this will be one of the most financially challenging periods of any family's lives so to suggest that financial independence is truly possible for the vast majority of women seems incredibly unrealistic and designed to make women feel like failures when they can't achieve it

1. By dropping out of the workforce to be a SAHM you will detriment your career in the long term and reinforce gender stereotypes -Taking a break from working isn't necessarily unfeminist or conforming to stereotypes. I know several men my age that have taken breaks from work to go travelling for a few years and nobody has batted an eyelid and they expect to resume their careers when they return. So taking time out of work isn't necessarily the problem but i think there is a special stigma attached to taking time out to care for your kids (although caring for elderly relatives etc is also frowned upon). I would argue that if we all go back to work ASAP regardless of if we want to stay at home or not for a few years then we are bowing to the pressures of the patriarchy and they have won. We will still be detrimented by maternity leave breaks either way but also lose our autonomy to choose to take a career break to do something we want to

1. You are adding to the problem of facilitated men outcompeting working mothers as they have more time/energy to devote to work - I agree with this although I think any woman that takes on the lion's share of the domestic duties and childcare could also be guilty of this even if they work. The problem is that many corporate environments expect their employees to act as if they don't have a family or any other responsibilities outside of work. This is detrimental to women who are often bogged down more with domestic responsibility (especially single mothers) and men who even if facilitated and appear to be winning, often lose out on precious family time. As a PP has said, I don't think eradicating SAHMs would force men to step up and therefore force a change in culture to a more family friendly Eutopia as there will always be people without these responsibilities who will be happy to dance to their employer's tune in order to gain a competitive advantage.

I would question this one by asking how many mothers (and fathers) are completely financially independent and what the exact definition of this independence is. Are you financially independent if you take any state support?

I think there’s a vast difference between being co-dependant and dependant. I also don’t think you are independent if you take state support. Not that that’s a bad thing.

A lot of families go through a phase of taking more than they pay in in taxes. But children aren’t little forever. If you work for 40 / 50 years most of those years won’t involve caring for small children.

The problem is that many corporate environments expect their employees to act as if they don't have a family or any other responsibilities outside of work

Totally agree with this. We need a better work life balance. Not just for parents of small children but for everyone.

Constantlycold - what is the meaningful difference between being financially dependent and codependent? Either way you're not financially independent are you?

what is the meaningful difference between being financially dependent and codependent? Either way you're not financially independent are you

It gives you more options. I’m currently co dependent. If dp and I were to split up, I’ve still got my salary. I can downsize my expenses and would still have a decent standard of living once I was independent.

If I was a sahp and dp and I split up I would be fucked.

I guess I’m saying it’s easier to move from co dependence to independent, than from dependent to independent

Constantlycold - I guess so but as a SAHM I could also downsize my living costs and get a job to cover these costs. I accept that getting a job is an added complication but it certainly would be possible. I'm not saying there isn't a difference, just saying there isn't necessarily a 'vast difference'.

I'm not saying there isn't a difference, just saying there isn't necessarily a 'vast difference

I think there is a vast difference. You could potentially have been out of work for a decade. Getting a reasonably well paid job might not be as easy as you think (obviously I know nothing of your individual circumstances).

User you've missed one important point. All this is so gendered. It's obvious that families will pick up an additional financial burden with kids and therefore the couple's personal finances become more interdependent. But I think the fact that the majority of the dependence is still by the woman on the (usually higher earning) man is a feminist issue and that's what makes the decision to SAH such a controversial one within feminism.

"Taking a break from working isn't necessarily unfeminist or conforming to stereotypes"

It's much more common for women to take time off for kids than it is for men to take sabbaticals or take time off for kids. If it was more even, employers would be less biased against women employees (which perpetuates the whole problem)

Constantly - yes you're right that the length you were out of the workforce could impact how easy it would be to get a good paying job as will education, experience etc.

Equally for people that have chosen to stay in work and are therefore under your definition codependent, if they live in an expensive area or have a job in a low paying industry with little prospects they too would also find it hard to earn enough to support themselves even once they have made changes to their lifestyle.

I guess what I'm saying is codependency and dependency can end up with the same fate once support is withdrawn. Those who earn enough or can find jobs to support themselves single handedly will always do better than those that can't but staying in employment will not always offer protection for all women.

that's what makes the decision to SAH such a controversial one within feminism.

So is not supporting a woman's decision to be SAHP. It devalues the role and also perpetuates the patriarchal capitalist working practices which favour men whose partners SAHP. If the role were valued, returning to work would be easier, caring for family would be less detrimental to having a career, more men would take on this role.

" if we all go back to work ASAP regardless of if we want to stay at home or not for a few years then we are bowing to the pressures of the patriarchy and they have won. "

2 points on this

Is it not also men's responsibility to step up and take an equal share of the time at home and the associated career sacrifices? By not doing this they are benefiting from the status quo, keeping the economic power, perpetuating stereotypes and disadvantaging their female partners, other women in the workforce, other men who want more time with their families, and potentially their kids too

"Regardless of whether we want to or not". I would argue that the pressures of patriarchy force more women to SAH or go PT than force them to stay in work...

"So is not supporting a woman's decision to be SAHP. It devalues the role and also perpetuates the patriarchal capitalist working practices which favour men whose partners SAHP."

You can't have it both ways. Surely a woman's decision to be SAHM exactly perpetuates the working practices you describe.

Supporting and valuing other women's decision to SAHP or work in paid employment would serve feminism much better than criticising other women's choices IMO. It offers greater flexibility and means that women do not suffer further at the hands of other women as well as men. Valuing people and their skills helps employment. Valuing time spent as a SAHP is part of this.

Surely a woman's decision to be SAHM exactly perpetuates the working practices you describe.

No. Inflexible working practices necessitate SAHPs but it is the devaluing of the role which perpetuates inequality. If the role were valued, employers would value it in terms of seeing a person who has spent some time as a SAHP as more employable.

I guess what I'm saying is codependency and dependency can end up with the same fate once support is withdrawn. Those who earn enough or can find jobs to support themselves single handedly will always do better than those that can't but staying in employment will not always offer protection for all women

With regard to low paid work. I would hope that working tax credits would fund some of the costs of childcare. Thereby making it financially beneficial to work even a minimum wage job over staying at home.

Friend of mines relationship broke up. She’s on a low wage she was financially better off without her —useless waste of space— husband.

Thought experiment - a couple who earn the same in the same industry. After kids they can either both work part time, or one can stay at home.

We know that current working practices reward sole focus on career and so the second option may be more optimal for that family. Let's assume that is the case. One person has to SAH or go very part time.

I would argue that there are other structural factors at play that mean that the woman is overwhelmingly more likely to be the one to step out of the work force even in this seemingly level playing field. Those factors make me angry as a feminist. They include inherent sex discrimination in the workplace (even pre kids) as well as the way we socialise and bring up females in society. There are loads more.

I don't think this is right or fair. Not because I think raising kids is a shit job or look down on women who SAH (as I'll no doubt be accused of) but because I believe that every human being should have the option to have a varied and interesting life with good balance between work and family and kids benefit from this too. If we cannot have a work life balance utopia, I strongly believe that the "time out" should be shared between the male and female partners - why should one sex have all the career opportunities and all the earning power and the other have the time with the children? Both miss out.

Grumpy I do understand the gendered nature of all of this but then I question why we assume that women and men should always want the same things. I do subscribe to the theory that biology can impact a mother's decision to stay at home so I therefore would expect SAHP stats to be skewed towards women staying at home. Staying at home will result in some financial dependence for a period of time. Lots of people are dependent on their partners for lots of things over their lifetime including working parents not earning enough to support themselves. There just seems to be a particular aversion and disdain to a SAHM's dependence that doesn't exist in relation to other forms of dependence.

"Supporting and valuing other women's decision to SAHP or work in paid employment would serve feminism much better than criticising other women's choices IMO."

You're missing my point. It isn't about devaluing SAH or criticising women. If we don't make real changes to encourage men to take up that role too then all we are doing is making women feel better about the fact that they SAH and changing nothing.

Grumpy sorry for double post. So do you think a the woman's decision to stay at home in your thought experiment would not be influenced by biology?