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.

User I see your point however I'm very uncomfortable encouraging women to go back to the traditional gender roles we fought so hard to shake off in the past. I'd be much more comfortable if fathers were somehow incentivised to share this work.

"At a macro level though, I do think it it does matter (hugely) that talented women are opting out of the workforce. Opting out of decision making and leadership. "

Exactly

Grumpy

Yes, it was only years later coming on here when I realised that I had been lucky, and it was so different to how many people start out and continue today.
I guess we are all different.
what I do find comforting is that dd doesn't want to be a sahm and has a career all planned.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being a sahm, but agree to a certain extent that if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.
If somebody levelled this at me, I couldn't argue.

FWIW I had a SAHM. It put me off entirely - seeing the way life worked out for her, the missed career for someone of her qualifications, and the imbalance of power in her relationship (and even her later relationships because she never learned a different way to be), no pension of her own.
So the role model thing I am not sure it works the way people think! I have friends with high powered business women mothers who became SAH because they felt they missed their mums as kids.

I do think that change is coming - albeit very slowly - with the likes of shared maternity/paternity leave. Women have to be prepared to “share” it though!
In some ways it’s a self fulfilling prophecy at the moment, women earn less at and around the child bearing years because your career can’t advance while you’re on mat leave, while men often have a boom at the very same time because they have, for even just one year, full time support at home. And they are perceived to be more dedicated to work precisely because they have become a father/sole breadwinner. Equal and opposite to what happens to working mothers. Hence it becomes a slippery slope and easy for a couple to agree than the male career is worth focusing on to the detriment of the woman’s career. Which could be 40-50 years long -it’s a marathon not a sprint and some dip in earnings for a few years shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

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.

Nothing changes because the SAH role is not valued enough. Women are worried about telling future employers they have been a SAHP. If this role were valued, it would be a plus, like volunteering. If the SAHP role were truly valued, employers would be doing all they could to encourage candidates into working for them who had done this. There would be more family friendly working practices.

Yes, make everyone feel better about the SAHP role. That way when people do want to return to work the transition is much more straightforward. Changing a pervasive ideology is the beginning of actual change.

"Here’s a test, those of you who are SAHMs, ask your partner if they would swap roles with you if your income and future earning prospects exactly matched theirs."

I earn over 3x what my husband does. He still feels entitled to his own fulfilling career, even if that is "worse" for our family unit, on balance, than him SAH. Who am I to tell him he should just quit and do the optimal thing for the family? But women make this type of sacrifice all the time. Therein the difference in socialisation and expectations.

"My DH doesn't want to be a SAHD, it's not a financial thing. He just doesn't have the same desire to do it and believe it or not, thinks that it's a harder role on a day to day basis than his job. He loves the kids and would like more time with them but not be a SAHD"

This proves nothing. I feel like your DH, I would not like it. But I'm female. I don't think it's to do with biology.

I agree, it proves nothing. It was more of an anecdote in response to an anecdote about how men wanted all secretly wanted to be SAHDs but the lack of pay put them off.

I have asked my dh before and he would bloody love to be a sahp. Much nicer than working in both our opinions. But it means nothing because preference depends on what your career is and what your personality is like.

Okay - I see. I guess I'm trying to make the point that male socialisation plays a massive role too - they aren't expected to take on this role, they don't grow up considering kids/career (and women don't grow up expecting to have to be the main breadwinner). I think it's really really hard for people to go against the grain, harder than people think in theory.

A lot of these pressures are less obvious and I'm trying to highlight the problems with "choice feminism"

But making life bloody difficult, practically impossible in some cases, for yourself doesn't advance feminism. Tbh in those circumstances I'd be surprised anyone had any fight left.

Change the ideology first. The first step is women in power supporting women with very little. A bit of positive discrimination to even up the career disadvantages of some time being spent being a SAHP.

Squirrel - although we disagree on this specific issue, I do agree with a lot of the general principles that you mention and feel that on a lot of things we would have common ground. It heartens me that there are intelligent, articulate women fighting the cause for women. I don't mean that to sound patronising by the way. Just wanted to confirm that there is probably more that unites us than seperates us

User I agree and I am really glad the discussion has been constructive

@liltingleaf I agree and in my earlier posts I said I totally understand why so many women opt out. I'd like to see not only a bit of "positive discrimination " to offset the difficulties of returning to work after a break or balancing family responsibilities but also more policies actually placing the responsibility on men to share the domestic/family work and career sacrifices for the greater good of a more equal society and more equal opportunities and choices for women.

On another positive note (along with shared leave) lots of companies are introducing “return-ships” which are perfectly designed to target people who’ve taken time out for family reasons. In these cases have been a SAHM is definitely not an issue on one’s CV..

more policies actually placing the responsibility on men to share the domestic/family work and career sacrifices for the greater good of a more equal society and more equal opportunities and choices for women.

I'd actually prefer more policies aimed at companies to ensure they have family friendly working practices and have specific schemes geared towards employing parents returning to work after having children.

If the legislation instead forced men to take a career break, at the moment, as things stand lots of families would lose a significant amount of income as the man earns the greater salary. That would be unfair and penalise SAHMs more.

I'd actually prefer more policies aimed at companies to ensure they have family friendly working practices and have specific schemes geared towards employing parents returning to work after having children

That sounds like a great idea.

I would love to see decent paternity leave for men (paid at 90%). To be taken preferably at the end of the mother’s maternity leave. It would help women get back to work and possibly redress the imbalance of it mostly being women who are primary carers.

Yes properly paid paternity leave would help a lot - and this wouldn't penalise families lilting. That way there would be more real options. As it stands SPL is only statutory pay.

Paid paternity leave would only partially resolve the issue. Most men take little to no time off, not even a couple of weeks, even when they can well afford it and have the option. In addition most women who proactively chose to give up are not wishing their husband would give up instead of them so they could work.They don't want this option at all. They want it to be them who doesn't have to work.

I really don't see this as something that will change the dynamics of stay at home parents when it's a proactive choice.

I don't think paid paternity will make much difference.
I know several couples expecting babies and none of the men are taking more than 2 weeks off because their partners refuse to share.
In every case they want the full year off, because they feel they deserve it for carrying and nurturing the baby.
Maybe women who are career driven will want to go back to work and put their foot down with their partners, but would you really want to share mat leave if you had a min wage job with poor conditions?

I would love to see decent paternity leave for men (paid at 90%). To be taken preferably at the end of the mother’s maternity leave. It would help women get back to work and possibly redress the imbalance of it mostly being women who are primary carers.

^^ This is a very good idea. I think just like maternity leave is expected, say 3 months paternity leave taken at the end of maternity leave paid at 90% would make a very big different.

I don't think it would, I think it would only make a difference when the woman gives up because she has to. It won't make a difference when the woman gives up because that's exactly what she wants. In that cSe they don't want to be forced to go back to work.

Nothing changes because the SAH role is not valued enough. Women are worried about telling future employers they have been a SAHP. If this role were valued, it would be a plus, like volunteering. If the SAHP role were truly valued, employers would be doing all they could to encourage candidates into working for them who had done this. There would be more family friendly working practices.

liltingleaf perhaps I'm being dense but I just can't imagine a way in which being a SAHP could be valued by employers. I can see how society could and should value child-rearing and care work - certainly from the perspective of more fair pay for work in those sectors and government/social.financial support for people taking on those roles voluntarily - but I don't understand how that value would translate to the working world. Is there a comparison you could make?

I for one know in my industry something like volunteering, no matter how worthy the cause, wouldn't mean a damn thing to employers in comparison to that time spent working in our industry. Surely it will never compete with the same time spent in the office, which men continue to win out on. They aren't going to give that up for all the same reasons women are disadvantaged by it right now, no matter how "valuable" the alternative.