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.

Why are women still more often the secondary earners before kids? Why don't more women want to share maternity leave - even if they are the equal earners? Are they less ambitious? Is it biology? I don't think so. Genuinely puzzled by this - all I can think is socialisation and workplace discrimination (actual or expected) must be the reasons.

I'd be properly miffed if my DH refused to split the time out from career.

I agree too handbag. It's (imo) a feminist issue that women find they need to choose jobs/employers based on their 'family-friendliness' in order to hang onto them. I took up my old job as a single woman - I chose it because it was a good fit for my skills, interesting, challenging, and meant working in an area that I was honestly passionate about. I chose without takingi to account the fact that I'm female and yhat i might decide to reproduce, in fact. It was only later, when my personal circumstances changed, that I realised I was likely to be buggered, career-wise, when I had a baby. Which is a bit shit, honestly.

May I also say generally what an interesting discussion this is? It's nice to be able to talk about the issues around staying at home without vitriol.

Now it might be anti feminist, but in sah my support has helped dh in being able to make more of a contribution to the economy. His job is full on and not really compatible with doing 50% of the childcare. He earns well but not enough to buy a big enough house to house a nanny and pay that nanny's wages. So if he found himself having to do his 50%, I think he'd not have his particular job. He would take a lower paid job, more compatible with family life and therefore pay less tax. If I was working too and between us we made his current salary, we would still pay less tax than he currently does and we'd get child benefit, which we don't at the moment. So in a round about way I consider that I am making an economic contribution. The only way that would be better for the country in tax terms is if dh did his current job and I worked and we paid for childcare. But neither of us is inclined to do that because we want one of us to be here for the kids and we want life not to be totally knackering. So that wouldn't happen for us.

The only way you get sah to be valued is by giving it a financial value. That means to me that the wohp has to legally recocgnise that the sahp gives them benefits in the workplace (freedom to work as needed in this capitalist set up) and in facilitating easier family life. The agreement of a couple for one person to sah should be like a contract, in which each partner acknowledges that it comes with good and bad consequences. One consequence should imo be that the wohp wages are seen as belonging to both parties equally. The sahp should not be financially disadvantaged brcause a joint agreement was made.

Once sah has a financial value attached, men will appreciate it more. People take for granted what they get for free. Additionally a lot of sahm are financially abused - the man sees it as his money and doesn't see at all what he is getting in return. I think legal recognition that money is joint in these circumstances would go some way to fixing that.

The only way you get sah to be valued is by giving it a financial value. That means to me that the wohp has to legally recocgnise that the sahp gives them benefits in the workplace (freedom to work as needed in this capitalist set up) and in facilitating easier family life. The agreement of a couple for one person to sah should be like a contract, in which each partner acknowledges that it comes with good and bad consequences. One consequence should imo be that the wohp wages are seen as belonging to both parties equally. The sahp should not be financially disadvantaged brcause a joint agreement was made

That’s such an interesting idea. Do you think most working parents would be comfortable signing a contract?

I’m still recovering and my baby is 14 months squirrel That’s if I ever get fully better. With my first it took 6 months for my cs wound to stop hurting.

With some jobs it won’t make much difference if you’re out for a couple of years tbh. Even if it did, a competent sahp with a bit of support from the workplace could catch up in many fields. I’m considering updating some skills to start a new career in the future but until my youngest is old enough for cheaper childcare, it’s not worth the stress and hassle to do it right now for less than childcare costs.

I think what holds a lot of us back is lack of confidence, which I believe is reinforced through the systemic devaluing of being a sahp. I personally find being a sahm harder in many ways than going out to work because of how I feel about it and how I feel I’m perceived by others because of it. I feel a lot of guilt though I’m trying to get over it as it’s unhelpful.

Constantly I honestly believe that in making the choice to sah something with legal rights and recognitions, people would be forced to consider the long term implications in a way that they don't at the moment. Not thinking it through, tends to have dire consequences for women, since it is women who tend to sah. When it all goes pear shaped, the man tends to come out of it better, because he keeps control of the money.

If a contract was the norm was and my dh didn't want to give me that legal protection, it would be a big heads up for me, before I put myself in a vulnerable position. If he wanted the benefits, he would have to give me something real in exchange and not just his word.

That's a really interesting idea Iwanna, and one which I think has merit. Especially your point about an unwillingness on the part of thr working parent to be a big heads-up.

Even if a contract itself didn't become the norm, I do think we should be teaching all children (male and female) about these issues. I don't know if things have changed but my experience in education was that the unspoken assumption was that you picked a career and stuck with it until you retired. How many people does that actually apply to though - never mind SAHMs, with the way the economy seems to be going surely we should be encouraging all young people to have a far more flexible mindset about their careers and as part of that, discussing things like career breaks and retraining? Which could include taking time out to be a SAHP or carer, what you should consider, how you might approach it etc?

Women aren't the secondary earners before children now, not on average. Women in their 20s now outearn men, and the average age for first birth is 30.

Also, you can't generalise to say a year is enough to recover from birth (and really 9 months is the appropriate period anyway, given that this is the paid period). It isn't enough for all women, and in addition that ignores the fact that some women need to start ML at 29 weeks. Happened to me. I'd also venture to suggest that women who have to start ML early are probably more likely to need more time to recover after the birth too. You could end up with under 6 months paid if you had to go early and went overdue.

I appreciate that this doesn't happen to most women, it didn't with me in one of my pregnancies, but it happens enough that you can't just say a year (or 9 months) is enough to recover.

I think the idea of a contract is interesting too. I think it would be especially useful in cases where the SAHP agrees to stay at home with certain cobditions and then the WOHP attempts to rescind on aspects of the agreement. By enshrining the rights of the SAHP it certainly goes someway to addressing the power unbalance

I guess it all starts to fall apart a bit if the couple split up as obviously the contract would then be void and the SAHP would still be disadvantaged career wise through having this break out of employment. Could this lead to women staying in unsatisfactory relationships just to keep the conditions stipulated in the contract? Kind of like how many disgruntled and unmotivated employees stay with companies they actually hate as they don't want to lose their tandcs

I wouldn't end the contract upon divorce. The woh partner will continue, post divorce, to benefit from the career advantages gained from having had a sah partner and also from taking no time out of the workplace. The sah partner should not be financially disadvantaged because a relationship has ended. Women usually get residency of the children, which negatively affects their ability to work freely, impacts on where they live (school/childcare considerations etc). Men shouldn't get to carry on with no change, keeping all the money, paying as little as they can get away with in cs. They should have to continue to support the family they formed, including the woman whose career has been affected by looking after their shared dc. Too often the kids are seen as the woman's responsibility and not the man's too.
Obviously post divorce a woman will usually need to return to work but that is hard if she doesn't have freedom and time to redevelop her career. The ex who didn't take the hit in the first place, continues imo to owe that support for a time, along with doing their fair share of child care so she gets the best chance to get back into the workplace.

I had an interesting conversation with dd and her friends recently, they are all career driven and have been from a young age and are now between the ages of 14- 18.
They talk openly about not having children and choosing their partners wisely. The considered opinion is that there just isn't time for a family and everything that comes with it.
They aren't considering leaving their careers to raise children or making compromises for their lifestyle choice.
Of course they may change their minds but I find it very interesting they are considering this now, at such a young age.

All the talk uotbrrad about trying to assign professional value to tasks and skills that a SAHM entails, sort of misses the point. If women didn’t have to completely leave the workforce in the first place, then this wouldn’t be an issue.
Sandbergs book Lean-In (which is excellent) talks about women staying engaged, a site much harder once you have disengaged from the workplace.
However, if you have, then trying to make out that SAHM skills are relevant for most jobs will do you a disservice and make you look defensive. Instead, own your choices, so you took time out, you’re not the first. Research your industry thoroughly(this would be way more impressive at interview than talking about stuff most people just go as part of day to day living) and really THINK about what you can bring to the role , do some skills refreshers, study your previous career record in great detail and remember what it was you did/knew/enjoyed. You don’t need to call out your maturity because you’ve been a SAHM, it will be obvious and hopefully impressive.

Apologies about all the typos, trying to type while grabbing a quick lunch

The discussion of the principles of the supposed contract are what many couples do anyway.
You don't need a contract, just socialise your boys properly, so they mature into men that women will want to be with for a ltr.

The discussion of the principles of the supposed contract are what many couples do anyway.

Actually, I think the contract is a great idea, precisely because many couples don't discuss this stuff in enough detail.

I know quite a few families where assumptions have been made on both sides about how things will work, how the housework will be shared, how money will be shared, when the SAHP will return to work etc. Obviously, people should discuss all of this stuff up front, but that doesn't always mean that they do.

However, if you have, then trying to make out that SAHM skills are relevant for most jobs will do you a disservice and make you look defensive. Instead, own your choices, so you took time out, you’re not the first.

You almost make it sound shameful. Not to be spoken about. I'm not talking about fabrication of skills, just being able to talk about skills acquired whilst being a SAHP, where they are relevant.

Research your industry thoroughly(this would be way more impressive at interview than talking about stuff most people just go as part of day to day living) and really THINK about what you can bring to the role , do some skills refreshers, study your previous career record in great detail and remember what it was you did/knew/enjoyed

And this seems so patronising, especially with the capitalisation. If a woman is returning to her previous field she will know what keeping up to date entails. I'm amazed at how people claiming to be feminists can so casually be so patronising towards other women without seeing the irony and hypocrisy implicit in this patronisation.

just being able to talk about skills acquired whilst being a SAHP, where they are relevant.

I think it's fine to talk about skills acquired whilst being a SAHP where they are relevant. I guess the point is that the skills acquired as a result of being a SAHP will generally only be relevant to a fairly small number of roles/fields. It's different, of course, if you're talking about skills that someone has happened to acquire during the time that they have been a SAHP - I guess that could include just about anything.

Constantly I think the idea of a SAH contract is actually very progressive. I think it would do for SAH what pre nups do for marriage. Give a moment of pause in what can be an extremely precarious position typically for women. I would without hesitation sign one for DH, the PT/SAH parent in our relationship. I think it is actually a revolutionary idea.

I had to go out earlier and whilst travelling was thinking that one of the reasons the role of SAHP is devalued so much in a patriarchal capitalist society is that it is in open opposition to the current model of patriarchal capitalism, where a large number of women work and are exploited in low paid service and care industries for very few benefits. Not entering into these low paid fields also does not support those women in power in the workplace. This is because there is no one left to employ to support the running of their own homes/caring for their own children. Being a SAHP means that women are not earning money or paying taxes or paying others to take care of running their household/caring for their children in order to support the capitalist patriarchal economy. Women, as valued members of their families, are much more likely to have ownership and autonomy over their own work.

I’m not sure about a contract - if it is like a marriage of equals then maybe, if it’s he who pays the piper calls the tune, not so much.

I’d think a universal income could work well for sahp. I think more flexible working at all levels would make a massive difference too. We’d need a shift in perspective regards part timers though as the current obsession with presenteeism seems all consuming in many workplaces.

as a result of being a SAHP will generally only be relevant to a fairly small number of roles/fields.

You'd be surprised. Having a member of the family who takes on the role of SAHP often necessitates learning new skills. This is because a loss in monetary income, along with some flexibility and freedom in how (unpaid) work is managed and prioritised, time wise, means a diversification, skills wise can be prudent. So a SAHP may be more likely to take on work themselves or manage a home based project themselves rather than outsource.

krabby the contract would be as simple as legally agreeing that money earned by the wohp is legally jointly owned by the sahp. It would flag up situations where the woh partner wants the easier life and childcare that having a sah partner brings, but isn't willing to sacrifice anything themselves or offer legal protection to their spouse.
It would create instant economic value to sah, but not impact on taxpayers.

I’d think a universal income could work well for sahp. I think more flexible working at all levels would make a massive difference too. We’d need a shift in perspective regards part timers though as the current obsession with presenteeism seems all consuming in many workplaces

I totally agree with more flexible work. Part time work is often poorly paid and less professional than full time work. This really needs to be addressed.

I’m always a bit baffled by the universal income thing. Is it that all citizens get paid a living wage by the state? I just can’t quite get my head round it.

I’m always a bit baffled by the universal income thing. Is it that all citizens get paid a living wage by the state? I just can’t quite get my head round it.

Yes, I suppose the idea is that this is cost effective when compared to all the administration involved allocating welfare payments.