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 think that the main problem in regards to

The problem with universal income is that to make it work economically it has to be lower than lots of people currently get (especially vulnerable groups). So people like me are better off as I get no benefits currently but people currently getting housing benefit and/or income support or whatever are worse off.

I really like the idea in some ways - you could just chose to be an artist or run a charity or, indeed, just look after your family - but I don't think the numbers can work.

I think the main problem seems to stem from the fact that the idea of being a SAHM has been utterly devalued. It is considered "less than". If you choose to be a SAHM with a partner that supports you financially, you are in essence also supporting him. You are freeing the other person up in the relationship to provide monetary assistance, while you are performing an equally valid position by providing consistency and stability in the homestead. It is not an unequal role-it is just different. And very valid. I think by considering the idea of motherhood as a (very hard, very rewarding and important) job we will as a society free ourselves from thinking that choosing to remove ourselves from the workforce is in some way "submitting to the patriarchy". Each partner plays a role, a different role, but an important one that many would consider being the most beneficial for everyone involved.

The problem with universal income is that to make it work economically it has to be lower than lots of people currently get (especially vulnerable groups). So people like me are better off as I get no benefits currently but people currently getting housing benefit and/or income support or whatever are worse off.

I'm not exactly sure. You'd have to study the case studies where this has been done over a number of years. The idea is an interesting one, though.

It's really interesting.

There have been a few experiments but none really do what we're talking about. So in Finland they did a small group getting £500 a month. That isn't enough to actually support yourself although it's better than nothing.

Yes, I think it will take time, though, to truly see the effects of this.

I'm not exactly sure. You'd have to study the case studies where this has been done over a number of years. The idea is an interesting one, though

The case studies are a bit on the small side. I might start a thread about it as it’s a topic I’m interested in but know nothing about.

I can see it being good for taking away the stigma and stress away from claiming benefits. It would also free up time and reduce financial pressure which would allow for people to improve their skill sets aimed at getting back into employment.

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.

This is exactly why judges award alimony payments. Although (correct me if I'm wrong) it's less common in the UK than in the USA? It should be more widely used as a tool to assign financial value to a SAHP's contribution.

choosing to remove ourselves from the workforce is in some way "submitting to the patriarchy"

I'm actually grateful to DH for working hard so I can take time out to raise DC. He doesn't necessarily have the better end of the deal. If anything I'm benefiting from the opportunity to be SAHM, not being oppressed by it. What I would like to see is more support for women returning to the workforce after SAHM. Currently employers view the career gap negatively and it's difficult to get back on track after a break.

Madame - I agree with your post.

I think it does tie in with the debate about SAHM skills as I think that the SAHM role has been so devalued in the eyes of society and othered that the idea that a woman in this role can develop skills or capabilities that are relevant to the workplace is almost offensive to some people.

If I was to say that I had been a nanny for a period of time but was now looking for a career change would I get the same advice about how the majority of what I do is done by everybody and is an assumed skill and I should just leave it as a gap in my CV with just the headline job title? I just don't think people would be so eager to dish this advice out. Obviously you have to make yourself attractive to future employers and that can involve doing skills refresh courses, getting relevant experience in a voluntary capacity but it also includes selling the experience you have in the best way possible. Again, I emphasise this isn't about making ridiculous claims about what you have done but where the competencies and skills are relevant of course you should mention it.

I’ve started a thread on universal basic income, it’s in feminist chat (can’t do link)

In the UK there's increasingly a move away from the more generous spousal maintenance orders, an expectation that the SAHP will look to move into work. I've been saying on some of the other SAHP threads lately, it cannot be relied on in the same way. The possibility of spousal maintenance is still more protection than an unmarried SAHP/lower earner gets, but it's being moved away from.

Re contracts, it's an interesting idea, but to have any teeth it would also need an enforcement framework. That potentially means a cost to taxpayers. I'm not saying don't do it, but it would need to be costed and presented as eg this will save the state X amount in benefits after couples with a SAHP split.

In the UK there's increasingly a move away from the more generous spousal maintenance orders, an expectation that the SAHP will look to move into work

And I think this move devalues the role of SAHP and is anti feminist as this change will mainly effect women. This should not be used to argue the role of SAHP is an anti feminist choice but rather the courts are being anti feminist in dismissing the value in a role which women primarily undertake. Feminists need to speak out against this action.

Lilting I agree. More evidence that the modern patriarchy doesn't like SAHMs at all. The way it's framed is that the lazy SAHMs are being forced to support themselves rather than sponge off some poor man. It conveniently ignores how much the man has profited from the SAHM and that the woman may never regain the earning capacity she had before they (both parents) agreed for her to be a SAHM.

Alimony seems much more common in the USA. There are restrictions e.g. the marriage must have lasted perhaps 10 years and the alimony is limited in duration, but at least there's some support for the SAHP to get back on their feet. Some states consider educational qualifications earned during the marriage to be marital property as the spouse will have provided support while the qualification was achieved, and the educated spouse will be required to pay a share of future earnings to the other spouse. Much fairer than the British attitude of "forcing lazy SAHP to support themselves after divorce".

Totally agree lilting and user.
This country is shameful in how it treats women and their children post divorce. Child support payments nowhere near reflect what it actually costs to keep a child (and you oftrn have to fight to get payment at all). What particularly pisses me off is that payments get reduced if the non resident parent starts living with a person whose own child lives with them full time. As if the nrp's children suddenly cost less to feed and house! This system results in lots of single mums needing additional state support, while the father's of their dc carry on having sufficient cash to go on holiday etc. How is that fair? Meanwhile single mum gets demonised because she needs state support. Men should be forced to pay properly for their own children.

In the UK there's increasingly a move away from the more generous spousal maintenance orders, an expectation that the SAHP will look to move into work

I know someone (SAHM) who is going through a shitty divorce. Their daughter is seven. The assets will be split, she gets a proportion of his pension and will be finically supported until their dd is of secondary school age.
That’s far from a shitty situation.

I’m aware there are some absolute bastards out there who hide their income and assets and not need to be done to address that

Yes, exploitation of women has just evolved. The patriarchy has decided that women, now they have some feminist ideas about having their own money, need to be filling low status caring and service posts. Paid roles which still serve the patriarchy in that they allow a little extra monetary income into the patriarch's family but also take over the domestic role which was previously undertaken by a SAHP. At the same time giving the illusion of feminism. The upside for the patriarchy is that women have to do more in these roles. Look after more children, do more cooking and cleaning.

Splitting of assets is different to spousal maintenance, it's the latter that's being affected. Whether one thinks spousal for 4 years until the child is 11 is shitty is a matter of opinion, but the general trend is for less than there would have been. This is, of course, a feminist issue because the people being affected are overwhelmingly female.

Fwiw I don't think the cases like you mention where the woman is probably fairly young if she has a 7 year old and hasn't been out of the workplace that long are the most inequitable. It's more the ones where the SAHP might have been out a couple of decades and has very poor prospects.

If you choose to identify yourself as something, for example a radical feminist, I feel that you're boxing yourself into a corner when it comes to choices. If you staunchly feel like you don't want to conform to patriarchal ideals then I don't understand why you would then be comfortable jumping ship and conforming to the ideals of another systematic way of thinking-radical feminism, with all of its implicit constraints. Do what's right for you, your partner, your children, regardless of what others may think.

" 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."

Agreed

Not that I think it's a good idea but it's interesting to note that the US has a much higher proportion of women in senior positions simply because they only take a max of 3-4months ML.

If you earn the same as your husband and there was equal paternity entitlement (let's say year 2, for those arguing 9-12m might not be enough for women - but pick whatever time period, I'm focusing on the sharing) why would your husband not do half of the time at home with the kids. I think we have a problem with this as a society.

Also agree with lilting that the exploitation of women has moved on to expect us to do everything and stretch ourselves even thinner... why would you stay in a job with no prospects which is exhausting you post kids? Of course you wouldn't want to pay childcare to do that. But as another poster pointed out, if women are out earning men in their 20s, then maternity discrimination must be a pretty huge factor in those women simply giving up and opting out

@gillybeanz that's an interesting about your dd and her friends. They're probably watching us all run ourselves ragged and thinking no thanks!

"Women, as valued members of their families, are much more likely to have ownership and autonomy over their own work."

Yes until they get divorced and have no way of getting back into any meaningful paid work and are left with CMS pennies and no pension and the kids... we come back to needing some way to ensure financial independence eg the SAH / post divorce contract.

@MadameEdam but even if it is valued and considered a "job" I would not want a society where men do all the work outside the home and women do all the work inside it - that's just going back to the 50s. I want to see policy making men take responsibility at home and giving women equal career opportunities